Prahlad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65996 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-499 Year-2021 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Prahlad Singh, Son of Sri Balmiki Singh Resident of Village - Pokharaira, P.S.- Saraiya, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Sr. Advocate Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No. 499 of 2021 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 25(1-b)a/26 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner was apprehended from his house with a pistol and two live cartridges.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the FIR itself, it is clear that the petitioner has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65996 of 2021(3) dt.29-06-2022 2/2 implicated in this case as the person holding pistol would certainly open fire if he would feel threatened. Though the petitioner is having large number of cases pending against him, he has been falsely implicated in all those cases. The petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2021.

Learned APP opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that the petitioner was caught with a pistol and two live cartridges and he is a habitual offender and a large number of criminal cases are pending against him.

Having regard to the submissions made hereinabove and considering the fact that petitioner is stated to be accused in 16 cases of serious nature, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. However, if trial is not concluded within three months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T