Ugrah Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through D.G.P., Bihar Patna And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1089 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- AURANGABAD =========================================================== Ugrah Yadav, S/o Kameshwar Yadav, R/o Village-Ghota, P.S.-Goh, Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through D.G.P., Bihar Patna

2. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, District-Aurangabad.

3. The S.H.O., Haspura, District-Aurangabad.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinah, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to GP-8 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of the first information report in Haspura P.S. Case No. 75 of 2013 registered under sections 25(1-B) (a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is named in the FIR but he was neither arrested at the spot nor any recovery was made from his possession. His

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1089 of 2014 dt.02-04-2015 2 / 2 name transpired by the co-accused who was arrested by the police and from whose possession illegal firearms were recovered. It has further been submitted that even in course of investigation no cogent material has transpired involving the active role of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

Be that as it may, in my view, these are the things which are to be considered by the investigating agency when the matter is under investigation. At this stage, this Court has only to see whether the allegations made in the FIR do constitute a cognizable offence or not. Admittedly, the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence and the petitioner's involvement has also transpired in the offence.

In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T