Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2124/2024dismissed

Arbind Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-20Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2124 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-823 Year-2023 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria ====================================================== ARBIND YADAV SON OF BAUKU YADAV @ DHOKU YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - NARAYANPUR NAVTOLIA, POLICE STATION - BHAWANIPUR (O.P.), DISTRICT - BHAGALPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Viveka Nandsingh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khagaria P.S. Case No. 823/2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, police recovered 150 live cartridges, motor cycle bearing registration no. BR 43H 5834, Red Mi mobile and key of the aforesaid motorcycle from the petitioner near Parmanandpur Dhala N.H.-31.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case due to local politics. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2124 of 2024(4) dt.20-04-2024 2/2 submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. From perusal of the case diary, F.I.R. and also perused the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned Additioinal Sessions Judge 6th, Khagaria, it appears that 150 live cartridges have been recovered from the conscious possession of petitioner. Hence, considering the serious of allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

9. Learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order, if not conclude, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the Trial Court.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) tusharika/- U T