Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39319/2023bail rejected

Fulo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-07Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39319 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2023 Thana- MARAUNA District- Supaul ====================================================== Fulo Yadav Son of Yogi Yadav, Resident of Village-Kuatol, Ward No-12, Police Station- Marauna, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 07-07-2023 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 Marauna P.S. Case No. 29 of 2023 dated 12.03.2023, lodged under Sections 379/413 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 of the Arms Act.

4. As per prosecution case, the allegation of going by a motorcycle which is subject to theft is against the petitioner and upon search one loaded pistol has been recovered from the possession of petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that antecedent of petitioner is clean, he is in custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39319 of 2023(2) dt.07-07-2023 2/2 13.03.2023 and charge sheet has already been filed in this case.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the arms with one live cartridge has been recovered from the possession of petitioner.

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 at present.

8. Liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after one month of framing of charge.

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

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