Rahul Kumar And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39682 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -187 Year- 2017 Thana -KUDHNI District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Rahul Kumar, son of Ram Naresh Mishra.

2. Birendra Mishra, son of Nagendra Mishra.

Both resident of village Garahua, P.S. Kudhani, District Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioners.

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Parasmani For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners seek bail in Kudhani P.S. Case No. 187 of 2017 registered under Section 216 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-A), 25 (1-AA), 25 (1-b)a, 26 (ii) and 35 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution case, one country made loaded pistol and live cartridge was recovered from the possession of petitioner no.1-Rahul Kumar while one country made pistol and four live cartridges were recovered from the possession of petitioner no.2-Birendra Mishra.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioners and they have

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39682 of 2017 (02) dt.19-08-2017 -2been falsely implicated in this case.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P., vehemently opposing the prayer of bail, has submitted that in view of recovery of arms and ammunitions from their possession, they are not entitled for privilege of bail.

In the facts and circumstances of case and in view of recovery made from the possession of the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to them. However, the learned court below is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. (Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) Trivedi/- U T