Dablu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2535 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2023 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Dablu Yadav Son of Surya Narayan Yadav R/o vill - ward no. 11, Gyantol, Sandalpur, P.S. - Sahebpur Kamal, Distt. - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pritish Kumar Lal, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sahebpur Kamal PS Case no. 227 of 2023 registered under sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 27(1) of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that he received secret information about the petitioner resorting to firing. On reaching the place of occurrence, it is stated that the petitioner made an attempt to escape but was caught and two country made pistols and four live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2535 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2024 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of his antecedents. No empty cartridge was recovered from his possession, though the allegation is of the petitioner resorting to firing. The petitioner is in custody since 23.8.2023 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP 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. having resorted to firing, two country made pistols and four live cartridges having been recovered from the possession of the petitioner together with petitioner having 17 antecedents against him, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and this application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody. (Partha Sarthy, J) perwez U T