Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60561/2019rejected

Dhaniklal Das v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-16Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60561 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2019 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia ====================================================== DHANIKLAL DAS Son of Ramjatan Das, Resident of Village- Kataiya, P.S.- Barhara, District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Barhara P.S. Case No.64 of 2019 registered under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

The informant got information that one person having firearm was moving near Kataiya Canal. The police went there but seeing the police, the person started fleeing away. The police chased but the person threw firearm on his verandah and a woman (wife of the petitioner) took firearm inside the house. On search, one loaded country made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the room of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of seizure list, it appears that the signature of the wife of petitioner was not obtained. The entire seizure list is fake and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60561 of 2019(3) dt.16-11-2019 2/2 fabricated. Nothing has been recovered from the house of the petitioner. The wife of the petitioner was sent to jail. The wife of petitioner has already been enlarged on bail, but it appears that on chase, the petitioner threw loaded pistol on his verandah and fled away in the maize field. The same firearm was recovered from the room of the petitioner.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T