Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55128/2024dismissed

Vikram Yadav @ Vikram Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-14Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55128 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2024 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== VIKRAM YADAV @ VIKRAM KUMAR YADAV S/O RAMDEO YADAV @ RAMDEV PRASAD YADAV R/O VILLAGE- RAM NAGAR, P.SPIRPAINTY, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukul Jee For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 14-08-2024 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 Pirpainty P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a,26 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation, the police party in the process of investigation of Pirpainty P.S. Case No. 02 of 2024, raided the house of the petitioner, who was found asleep. On search, one country-made rifle and two live cartridges were recovered from his bed.

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 only one criminal antecedent has been mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the bail

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55128 of 2024(2) dt.14-08-2024 2/2 petition and due to mistake two other criminal antecedents have been left to be mentioned. He has also submitted that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot. The petitioner is under custody since 03.01.2024.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during investigation the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. He has further submitted that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation and also the fact that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected.

7. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trail and if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T