Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49851/2025bail rejected

Hira Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-11Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49851 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- PARWALPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Hira Kumar S/o Sri Dhuri Saw Resident of village- Tharthari Bazar, P.S.- Tharthari, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhusha, learned APP representing the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, lodged on 28.02.2025 by the informant Pappu Kumar Singh.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that in course of investigation of Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025, the petitioner was arrested, he made confessional statement where after Md. Mumtaj and Md. Saddam Quaraishi were arrested and on their confession, the under constructed dam was raided from where two country made pistols and live cartridges recovered/seized. This led to the F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49851 of 2025(2) dt.11-08-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery/seizure is on the confession of Md. Mumtaj and Md. Saddam Quaraishi though he concede that he gave the name to the two accused in course of investigation.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting that beside the fact that on his confession, two accused were picked up and on whose confession the recovery took place, paragraph no.3 of the petition shows that the petitioner is accused in number of cases at Ekangarsarai Police Station and Parwalpur Police Station.

6. Taking into account the submission of the parties as also his criminal antecedent and the confession led to ultimately recovery of the arms, in that background, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T