Munna Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40052 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2021 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad ====================================================== MUNNA SINGH @ MUNNA KUMAR SINGH Son of Ram Babu Singh Resident of Village - Lallu Nagar, P.s.- Patliputra, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-AA), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that one pistol of 7.65 bore, 140 cartridges of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40052 of 2022(2) dt.22-11-2022 2/2 7.65 bore, 300 cartridges of 315 bore, 20 cartridges and two regular rifle of 315 bore and three license kept in the dash board, some mobiles of difference and identity card was recovered from a car. He further submits that apprehended person disclosed the name of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is made accused on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused, I am not inclined the enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No.189/2021. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T