Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51056/2024dismissed

Navin Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-26Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51056 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2024 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== Navin Singh Son of Late Baleshwar Singh Resident of Vill- Chainpura, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-07-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 08 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation, on a secret information, the informant along with police personnel reached the place the occurrence. On seeing the police force, four persons fled away leaving the Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. JH10BV4210 and on search one country made pistol was recovered from the dickey of front seat of said vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the petitioner was not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51056 of 2024(2) dt.26-07-2024 2/2 arrested at the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession and except the criminal antecedents there is nothing against the petitioner. The petitioner is under custody since 08.03.2024.

5. It appears that the two cases have been lodged against the petitioner one by the person from whom, the ransom was demanded and the present by the SHO. It has been mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner is a notorious criminal of the locality and no one dared to become seizure list witness against him. He is involved in as many as 24 cases.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as there are 24 criminal antecedents, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T