MD. TAUSIF ALAM, 20 years (Male) v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the seizure list. The instant matter relates to recovery of several semi manufactured parts of the pistol from the conscious possession of this petitioner as appears from the seizure memo and recovery of the alleged…
Judgment
Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH 2 31-07-2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties. ORAL ORDER
Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 778 of 2022 dated 11.10.2022 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 25(1- b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution, 25 pieces barrel (semi formed pistols), 25 pieces slider and 25 pieces trigger have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner.
The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner has fair and clean antecedent and he has been languishing in jail since
12.10.2022 and against him the investigation has been completed and the witnesses of recovery of the alleged firearms are police officials and moreover the provisions of Section 100 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46845 of 2023(2) dt.31-07-2023 of Cr.P.C. were not followed by the police while searching and seizing the alleged articles.
Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer.
Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the seizure list. The instant matter relates to recovery of several semi manufactured parts of the pistol from the conscious possession of this petitioner as appears from the seizure memo and recovery of the alleged materials is sufficient to draw an inference that the petitioner was indulged in manufacturing of firearms. Considering the nature of allegation appearing against the petitioner, in my view, it is not a fit case for bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his bail prayer stands rejected.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of this petitioner and take steps to conclude the same in the next six months. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the said period then the petitioner may renew his bail prayer. Sanjay/- U T (Shailendra Singh, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.