Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33147 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2020 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR S/o Shivchandra Rai R/o Vill.-Mahua Bazidpur, P.S.- Mahua, Distt.-Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for regular bail arises out of Mahua P.S. Case No. 113 of 2020, disclosing the offence punishable under Sections 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b) A, 26 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner was apprehended by the police in course of normal checking, when he was riding a motorcycle and was found carrying a loaded country-made pistol. The petitioner had attempted to flee away but was apprehended by the police. The petitioner has criminal antecedent, inasmuch as, he is accused in two more cases as mentioned in paragraph- 3 of the application. Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the motorcycle, which was seized, was registered in the name of his brother, who was the pillion rider

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33147 of 2020(2) dt.17-12-2020 2/2 when the petitioner was apprehended. His brother was carrying a pistol and on seeing the police he had thrown his pistol near the road side, which was recovered by the police. It appears from the statement made in paragraph- 6 of the application that the petitioner has admitted recovery of the fire-arm by the police. He is, however, throwing the blame on his brother in whose name the motorcycle was registered. It is specific case of the prosecution, on the other hand, that the recovery of the fire-arm was made from the petitioner's possession.

Considering the aforesaid circumstance, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail for the present.

This application is accordingly rejected.

If there is no substantial progress in the trial, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after three months.

It is directed that defects in the application pointed out by the Registry must be removed within two months from today. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Rajesh/- U T