Suraj Aruk v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38570 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -91 Year- 2014 Thana -AMAS District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Suraj Aruk Son of Hanumant Aruk, Resident of Village-Koera, P.S.- Koera, District-Kemjar (Orissa) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 91 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26(2) and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 14 and 15 of the U.A.P.A. Act.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused Suresh Prasad having identical allegation has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2015 passed in Cr.Misc. No.50884 of 2014.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is a very serious case in which a Tata Sumo

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38570 of 2015 (4) dt.02-12-2015 2/2 vehicle was intercepted by the police and on search three country made rifle of 0.315 bore, one country made gun and one country made pistol were recovered. The petitioner and one Suresh Prasad were found present in the said Tata Sumo vehicle at the time of search.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

It is true that the co-accused Suresh Prasad has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. What weighed in the mind of the Court for grant of bail to the co-accused Suresh Prasad is that the vehicle in which the fire arms were carried was being given by one Akhilesh Paswan and the petitioner had confessed before the informant that the seized arms belonged to him. The reason assigned for grant of bail to the co-accused Suresh Prasad itself goes against the case of the petitioner. Furthermore, on merits, in view of the recovery of huge cache of firearms, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U T