← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67489/2024bail granted

Ashish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-04Mr. Justice Harish Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67489 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2024 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Ashish Kumar S/o- Ramvinay Singh Resident of village- Belwa, Ward No 01, Police Station - Belwa, District- Sarlahi (Nepal) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-10-2024 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 156 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. Based upon the written report, the prosecution alleges that in course of patrolling, on a secret information, the police raided the house of one Pintu Nayak. When the police entered in the house, all the miscreants started fleeing away. However, the petitioner along with two other persons were apprehended at the place of occurrence and from the possession of the petitioner one country made pistol, a live cartridge and two mobiles were recovered. The police also found that in the

2/4 house, one person was kept confine after tying his hands and legs.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that so far the recovery of the person, who was kept confined in the house of Pintu Nayak is concerned, in this regard later on a case of kidnapping has been instituted. However, the present F.I.R. has been instituted only under the provisions of the Arms Act. The petitioner has neither any concern with the recovered Ramesh Damai nor with the other persons, who were present there. There is complete denial of the recovery of pistol and cartridge from the possession of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that only on account of his presence at the place of occurrence, when the police has conducted raid, on suspicion, his name has been implicated. It is lastly contended that, be that as it may, now the petitioner has been incarcerated since 13.05.2024.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the recovery of loaded pistol and mobiles suggest the complicity of the petitioner in crime.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that crime, in

3/4 question, is triable by the Magistrate and now the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been submitted, coupled with the fact that the co-accused person has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 53227 of 2024, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 156 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the local resident of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.

(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.

(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial. (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.

(v) The court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found

4/4 that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.

(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U T