Rustam Ansari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54349 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Rustam Ansari S/o Oli Ansari @ Ali Ahamd @ Oli Ahmad R/o - Madaina, P.S - Suryapura, District - Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Suryapura P. S. Case No.119 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of two cases and in sum and substance, the allegation is that police on receiving information reached the house of Oli Ansari, when the police force saw that Oli Ansari gave the pistol to an unknown accused who fled from the place of occurrence and when Oli Ansari was searched, 4-5 cartridges were recovered. Further, Oli Ansari disclosed that the person who fled with the pistol was his son.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54349 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 2/2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that no father would implicate his own son.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the case is under Arms Act and the investigation is in its nascent stages and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, petitioner may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T