Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37046/2025bail rejected

Mayank Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-06Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37046 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2025 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Mayank Kumar S/O Ram Priya Singh R/O Vill.- Ayodhya, Ward no. 10, P.s.- Teghra, Dist.- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bipin Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No.27 of 2025 lodged under Sections 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, which is pending before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Begusarai.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against two named accused persons with allegation that recovery of one desi pistol along with live cartridges, one mobile and one Apache motorcycle have been made, which is subject matter of the present case.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37046 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. The said recovery has not been made from conscious possession of the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.02.2025 and his antecedent is not clean. There are 3 criminal cases pending against him in which he is on bail.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and 6 months have lapsed in custody of the petitioner.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail 3 months after framing of charge. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T