Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2065/2024bail rejected

Subodh Kumar @ Subodh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-24Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2065 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-430 Year-2023 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Subodh Kumar @ Subodh Prasad S/O SARYUG MAHTO VILLAGEPAIJUNA, PS. AKBARPUR, DIST. NAWADA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 24-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 430 of 2023 registered on 17.09.2023 lodged under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, F.I.R. has been lodged against three named accused persons including the petitioner. It has been specifically alleged in the F.I.R., that from the petitioner's possession one country made pistol has been recovered

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner has been inserted in this case by the police only due to the reason that petitioner has two criminal antecedents.

5. Counsel further submits that petitioner is innocent

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2065 of 2024(2) dt.24-01-2024 2/2 and has committed no offence. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since17.09.2023 having two criminal case pending against him, in which he is on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that at the time of consideration of bail, this aspect must be taken into consideration that petitioner has two criminal antecedent.

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Therefore, his bail application is rejected. However, petitioner is at liberty that he may renew his prayer for bail two months after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Sunnykr/- U