Punjit Yadav @ Indrajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56637 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2022 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Punjit Yadav @ Indrajeet Kumar Son of Late Umesh Yadav R/V- Mathahi Ward No. 5, P.S- Madhepura (Mathahi OP) Dist- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 15-02-2023 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 121 of 2022 lodged under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution case, the recovery of country made pistol and 9 live cartridges were alleged to be made from the house of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2022 in which charge sheet has already been filed.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56637 of 2022(2) dt.15-02-2023 2/2 bail and submits that there are in total 12 criminal cases pending against the petitioner which has been lodged consistently since 2016 onwards. Counsel further submits that the present case is the 13th case in which petitioner is preferring bail, otherwise he is on bail in all the 12 cases. Counsel further submits that it is a unique case in which name of the petitioner is consistently figuring every year in all the cases and presently, there are 13 criminal cases pending against him. Upon specific query that whether charge has been framed in this case or not, counsel submits that charge has not been framed as yet. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present, but liberty is hereby granted to him that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/- U T