Patna High CourtCR. MISC./84857/2023bail rejected

Pintu Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-16Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84857 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-323 Year-2023 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== PINTU MANDAL SON OF DEOKI MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGEPAHARPUR, P.S. SOUR BAZAR, DISTRICT- SAHARSA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sour Bazar P.S. Case no. 323 of 2023 registered under sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1B)(a), 26, 35, 25(1-a) of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that on receiving secret information, a raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner. Three accused persons including the petitioner managed to escape. On search of the house of the petitioner it is stated that large number of articles including arms, ammunition and various arms in the process of being manufactured and articles for use in the manufacture of arms as detailed in the FIR, were recovered.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84857 of 2023(4) dt.16-04-2024 2/2 petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of his antecedents. Contrary to the allegations, no incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner's house nor was he arrested at the spot. He is in custody since 25.6.2023 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case. He is on bail in the other cases in which he has been falsely implicated.

5. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R., the description of the articles recovered from the house of the petitioner which include various arms in the process of manufacture together with the articles used for manufacture of arms, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U