Manoj Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58299 of 2015 (3) dt.08-03-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58299 of 2015 Arising Out of Muffasil PS.Case No. -98 Year- 2015 Thana -MUNGER MUFFASIL DistrictMUNGER ====================================================== Manoj Mandal, S/o Late Chhatri Mandal, R/o Village-Mai Chain Tola, P.S.- Muffassil, District-Munger.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rajiv Nayan (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 08-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 98 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b), A 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-AC), 26(1) (2) /35 of Arms Act.

Allegedly, from possession of the petitioner one bag containing nine semi prepared pistol set, nine barrel, fourteen semi prepared magazines, ten springs, five Hexa blade and one Rimur were recovered.

Submission is of false implication and that there is no independent witness of seizure list, two independent witnesses have stated the name of one Manoj Yadav and not of the petitioner vide paragraph-5 and 6 of the case diary, without obtaining

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58299 of 2015 (3) dt.08-03-2016 sanction and opinion of expert, charge sheet has been submitted, resulting which the petitioner is suffering in custody since 01.06.2015.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent also as earlier he was an accused in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 91 of 2014 under Sections 25 (1-B) of Arms Act.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that the earlier also the petitioner was involved in Arms Act case and as such at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 98 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger.

However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within six months after keeping the same on day to day basis, failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Amit/- U T