Rupesh Kumar @ Hani Singh @ Rupesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50470 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2019 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== RUPESH KUMAR @ HANI SINGH @ RUPESH PASWAN Son of Chandrika Paswan Resident of Village- Gautamnagar, Road No. 2, P.S.- Bodhgaya, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act registered in connection with Mofassil P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with recovery of arms on the basis of confessional statement of the arrested accused in Mofassil P.S. Case No. 94/2019. Based on such confession the petitioner's house were raided and after search in the upper portion of the house, loaded pistol was recovered from under the pillow of Dablu Singh @ Abhisekh Singh who has stated that the pistol belonged to the petitioner. It is submitted however, that the recovery has been made from accused Dablu Siingh @ Abhisekh Singh and the petitioner has been implicated merely on his confessional statement without any recovery from him. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP submits that the statement of arrested accused in Mofassil P.S. Case No. 94/2019 has led to recovery of illegal arms from the house of the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50470 of 2019(2) dt.14-08-2019 2/2 offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T