Patna High CourtCR. MISC./59014/2023rejected

Dhananjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-11-08Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59014 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-405 Year-2023 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Dhananjay Kumar, S/O- Ramadhar Sahani, village- Barharwa Ps- Muffasil Motihari Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kundan Rathore@ Kundan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 08-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Muffasil Motihari P.S. Case No.405/2023, lodged on 03.06.2023 under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged against five named accused persons including the petitioner on recovery of one pistol and a live cartridge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2023 and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59014 of 2023(3) dt.08-11-2023 2/2 is accused in three more criminal cases.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is not clean.

6. In the present facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner in connection with Muffasil Motihari P.S. Case No. 405/2023, pending before the learned CJM, Motihari, is hereby rejected.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T