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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58678 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2024 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== Sanoj Yadav @ Sanoj Kumar Yadav Son of Late Kamal Kishor Yadav Village- Shankarpur, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kishor Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gulnar Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 126 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)a, 26(1), 26(2), 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation, the police got information that in Sita Charan Diyara in the hut of co-accused Mittan Singh, some miscreants were manufacturing arms. The Special Task Force proceeded to the place of occurrence and when the police party reached near the hut, they heard the sound emanating from the hut of manufacturing of the arms. There persons came out from that house and began to flee away and two of them were

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58678 of 2024(2) dt.22-08-2024 2/2 apprehended after a little chase whereas the third miscreant became successful in fleeing away. Apprehended accused persons disclosed their names as Md. Aurangajeb @ Chand and Md. Jahangir. They also disclosed the name of the person who became successful in fleeing away as Mittan Singh. From that hut, some fully manufactured arms and some semi-built arms and the instruments for making the arms and ammunition were recovered. Arrested accused persons Md. Aurangajeb and Md. Jahangir disclosed that the material for preparing the pistol was supplied by Sanoj Yadav (the petitioner).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated. Nothing was recovered from his possession. As per confessional statement of co-accused, the petitioner is only supplier of the materials for manufacturing the pistol.

5. It appears that a number of cases of Arms Act are pending against the petitioner. He has criminal history of similar nature of cases. As such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T