Md. Afzal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65527 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-618 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== 1.
Md. Afzal Son of Md. Hamid Resident of Village- Laruwara, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Begusarai 2.
Md. Nazrul @ Bhullo @ Md. Bhullo Son of Md. Afzal Resident of VillageLaruwara, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 16-02-2023 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Mufassil (Singhaul O.P.) P.S. Case No. 618 of 2021 lodged under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35, 25(1-b)c of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution case, the allegation of availability/recovery of the articles by which the fire arms has been prepared are there in the F.I.R. From the seizure list also, it transpires that the articles used in preparation and repairing of gun are there without license.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65527 of 2022(2) dt.16-02-2023 2/2 petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel submits that the father and son both were made accused in this case only due to the reason that the antecedent of the petitioner is not clean and there is 2 criminal cases pending against petitioner no. 1, out of 2 cases, in one case he is on bail and in another case he was acquitted, whereas antecedent of the petitioner no. 2 is clean. Counsel submits that the petitioners are in custody since 22.08.2022.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the contents of the F.I.R. and seizure list, it transpires that the petitioners are involved in running the gun factory.
Upon specific query that whether charge has been framed in this case or not, counsel submits that charge sheet has been filed and charge has not been framed.
In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at present but liberty is hereby granted that they may renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/- U T