Dismissed

Moni Singh @Prabhakar Singh @Dipak v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC30 Jul 2019CR. MISC./12881/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna rejected the petitioner's bail application in aarme-related case. Despite claims of false implication and lack of witness tampering allegations, the court noted the possession of an AK-47 and pending criminal cases against the petitioner, refusing bail and directing expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail in PS Case No. 142 of 2018 stands rejected. Trial expedited within nine months.

Moni Singh @Prabhakar Singh @Dipak Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12881 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2018 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Moni Singh @prabhakar Singh @dipak Son of Ram Sewak Singh Resident of village- Sihma Uttarwari Tola, P.S-Matihani, Dist.-Begusarai.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shubhesh Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶8

6 30-07-2019

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶10

APP for the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 25(1-a), 25(1-a)a, 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Allegedly, the petitioner was found having AK-47 automatic rifle with live cartridges.

¶13

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 24-10-2018. Charge sheet has already been submitted. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in the present case. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12881 of 2019(6) dt.30-07-2019 2/2

¶15

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint Case/F.I.R. From his possession, one AK-47 automatic rifle with live cartridges is alleged to have been recovered. The petitioner has got six criminal cases pending against him.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No. 142 of 2018 stands rejected.

¶17

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶18

The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Katihar are directed to ensure the production of prosecution witnesses on the date fixed by the trial court, so that, the trial could be concluded within the stipulated period.

¶19

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Katihar for needful.

¶20

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶21

A.K.V.//- U T

Moni Singh @Prabhakar Singh @Dipak v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moni Singh @Prabhakar Singh @Dipak v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Laddu Patel Vs the State of Bihar

Guddu Paswan Vs the State of Bihar

Sonu Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Sunil Chaupal@ Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar