Ravi Kumar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No 17700 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -283 Year- 2016 Thana -JHAJHA District- JAMUI ====================================================== Ravi Kumar Choudhary, Son of Shri Ashok Choudhary @ Ashok Choudhary, Resident of Village- Chirouta, P.S.- Belhar, District- Banka. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Md. Irshad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Jhajha Police Station Case No 283 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 26 and 35 of Arms Act.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that allegation against the petitioner is of recovery of one rifle and also cartridges from his possession. It is further submitted that on perusal of the seizure list, it appears that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as seizure list has been prepared at 11.40 am whereas first information report has been lodged at 1.30 pm. Further, it is submitted that petitioner has criminal antecedent but in two cases, he has been acquitted of the charges levelled

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17700 of 2017 (3) dt.25-04-2017 2/2 against him and he is in custody since 12.12.2016. Heard learned APP also.

Having heard both sides and from perusal of written report, it appears that the occurrence is of 9 am when on information by the Superintendent of Police, the forest was raided and petitioner was apprehended. As such, considering the above fact and considering the fact that petitioner has criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) M.E.H./- U T