Md. Tausif Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46845 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-778 Year-2022 Thana- AGAMKUAN District- Patna ====================================================== MD. TAUSIF ALAM, 20 years (Male), S/o Md. Irsad Alam R/o VillageLohra, P.S.-Jamui, District-Jamui (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 31-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 778 of 2022 dated 11.10.2022 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 25(1b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution, 25 pieces barrel (semi formed pistols), 25 pieces slider and 25 pieces trigger have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner.

4. The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner has fair and clean antecedent and he has been languishing in jail since 12.10.2022 and against him the investigation has been completed and the witnesses of recovery of the alleged firearms are police officials and moreover the provisions of Section 100

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46845 of 2023(2) dt.31-07-2023 2/2 of Cr.P.C. were not followed by the police while searching and seizing the alleged articles.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer.

6. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the seizure list. The instant matter relates to recovery of several semi manufactured parts of the pistol from the conscious possession of this petitioner as appears from the seizure memo and recovery of the alleged materials is sufficient to draw an inference that the petitioner was indulged in manufacturing of firearms. Considering the nature of allegation appearing against the petitioner, in my view, it is not a fit case for bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his bail prayer stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of this petitioner and take steps to conclude the same in the next six months. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the said period then the petitioner may renew his bail prayer. (Shailendra Singh, J) Sanjay/- U T