Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38850/2024bail rejected

Budho Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-27Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38850 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2023 Thana- BASANHI District- Saharsa ====================================================== Budho Yadav Son of Bijal Yadav @ Bijli Yadav Resident of VillageTamkulha, P.S -Basnahi, District- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 27-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Basnahi P.S. Case No.247 of 2023 lodged under Section 414 of the I.P.C. read with sections 25(1-b)a/ 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against the two named accused persons including the petitioner against whom there is allegation that with the help of pistol, they are planning to commit crime. One motorcycle, live cartridges and smart phone have alleged to be recovered in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38850 of 2024(2) dt.27-05-2024 2/2 submits that nothing incriminating theft article has been recovered from his possession rather the said live cartridges have been planted by the police. He further submits that the said motorcycle has been recovered from possession of co-accused, namely, Ambika Kumar.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2023 having 5 criminal antecedent in which he is on bail in all the cases.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T