Md Javed v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37642 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2023 Thana- RAMNAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Md Javed Son Of Shekh Raiful Resident Of Village- Jigia, Ps- Ramnagar, Distt- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Zainul Abedin, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-07-2023 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 36 of 2023 lodged under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against 4 named accused persons against whom the allegation is that they were planning for hunting the wild animals.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the content of F.I.R. itself, it is clear that the police has taken action on secret information and upon chase, one old desi gun, 3 live cartridges, 7 empty cartridges and one iron Gupti have been recovered from his possession.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37642 of 2023(2) dt.05-07-2023 2/2

6. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 30.01.2023 having clean antecedent. He submits that in the rejection order of the Sessions Court, it has come that the fire arm is not effective and firing pin, trigger, spring, hammer were not in working condition. Therefore, counsel submits that the alleged arm is not arm at all as it is usual lathi only, hence, he deserves bail.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that 3 live cartridges has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and petitioner is in custody just from January, 2023.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am 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.

9. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) prakashmani/- U