Gajendra Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12799 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -15 Year- 2017 Thana -SAUR BAZAR District- SAHARSA ======================================================

1. Gajendra Yadav, Son of Late Surendra Yadav,

2. Jayram Yadav, Son of Gajendra Yadav,

3. Hareram Yadav, Son of Gajendra Yadav, All resident of villageBarsingha, Ward No. 17, P.S. Saur Bazar (Paterghat O.P), DistrictSaharsa. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sameer Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Saran Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 15 of 2017, registered under Section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa.

The accusation is that on receiving the secret information about gathering of petitioners and one Dilkhush Yadav for committing heinous crime. The Police started raid of the house of the petitioners, but none was apprehended. On search of the house of the petitioners, four country made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the house of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12799 of 2017 (2) dt.11-04-2017 2/2 the petitioners, whereas on search of house of Dilkhush Yadav, one country made pistol was recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it would appear from the F.I.R. that while the house of the petitioners was searched and country made pistol along with live cartridges were recovered, but copy of the seizure-list was not handed over to the family members of the petitioners. Further submission is that petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T