Bhim Yadav @ Hari Mohan Ji @ Lilha @ Pahadi Ful v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21394 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -376 Year- 2011 Thana -BARACHATTI District- GAYA ====================================================== BHIM YADAV @ HARI MOHAN JI @ LILHA @ PAHADI FUL son of Kheman Yadav, Resident of Village-Mainka. P.S. Imamganj, Dist.-Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. Jamil Akhtar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 28-06-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 376 of 2011 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 25(1-b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

The allegation is that the informant got information that 30-35 miscreants are gathering towards east of Hirua Pahadi, whereafter the informant along with the Police officials went to the said place and then the miscreants fled away but one of the miscreants was caught and upon search arms etc. were recovered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence whatsoever or allegation whatsoever as against the petitioner herein in the FIR, hence the petitioner should be granted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21394 of 2018 (4) dt.28-06-2018 2/2 the privilege of bail. It is further the submission of the petitioner that after being remanded in judicial custody, the petitioner has been remanded in other cases.

I have perused the case diary and find that not only there is ample evidence against the petitioner but the fact is that the petitioner is a veteran criminal inasmuch as 12 cases are pending against the petitioner which pertain to heinous crime, hence, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge such a person on regular bail. Reference in this connection be had to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 (Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh & Anr).

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U T