Dilip Kumar @ Raju v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71915 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-291 Year-2024 Thana- PIRO District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Dilip Kumar @ Raju Son of Indradev Singh R/O Vill.- Hankar Tola, P.S.- Piro, Dist.- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Piro P.S. Case No. 291 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, there is recovery of one pistol, two magazine containing 10 live cartridges, one gun and total 31 live cartridges including 28 bullets and cash of Rs. 7,06,850/- along with other articles have been recovered from the house of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71915 of 2024(3) dt.21-11-2024 2/2 the petitioner also submits that the alleged recovery of arms have been made from the joint house of the petitioner where other family members also reside. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of arms. The petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2024 and has got one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail. There is no compliance of Section 100 of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is also submitted that para- 11,12 and 13 of the case diary are statement of witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and the recovery. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of arms have been made from the house of the petitioner and the same also belong to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial expeditiously.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T