Allowed

Raushan Vishwakarma v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Aug 2022CR. MISC./25936/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner in an Arms Act case instituted under Section 25(1AA)b/26. The court addressed concerns regarding the seizure of arms from a joint family property and ordered the petitioner's release after charge framing with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail after framing of charges upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and subject to strict reporting conditions.

Raushan Vishwakarma Vs The State of Bihar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25936 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2021 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad

¶3

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

¶4

Raushan Vishwakarma, Son of Late Devraj Vishwakarma Resident of Village - Noaao, P.S.- Obra, District - Aurangabad

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 18-08-2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶13

learned APP for the State.

¶14

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the

¶15

complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

¶16

The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Obra P.S. Case No.278/2021 instituted under Section 25(1AA)b/26 of the Arms Act.

¶17

As per the allegation in the FIR, the informant who is a police officer has alleged that on 15.11.2021, on secret information, they raided the house of the petitioner herein and recovered/seized a cache of arms. As the petitioner failed to provide any document concerning the said recovery, the same were seized and he was taken into custody.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation cannot be attributed to him inasmuch as the same is a

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25936 of 2022(2) dt.18-08-2022 2/3

¶20

joint property being owned by the other family members. He further submits that although the police said to have recovered/seized such huge number of arms from the said house, there is no independent witness to the said occurrence and it is the police constables who have become witness thus putting a question mark on the alleged recovery/seizure. He lastly submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.11.2021 (as stated in para-10 of the bail application).

¶21

Taking into account all the aforesaid facts including the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 15.11.2021, the charge sheet stands submitted, this Court is inclined to grant him privilege of bail after the framing of the charges with certain conditions.

¶22

Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Obra P.S. Case No.278/2021 to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, subject to following conditions:

¶23

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member of the petitioner, who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25936 of 2022(2) dt.18-08-2022 3/3

¶25

(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reasons will entail cancellation of his bail by the Trial court itself;

¶26

(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every month till conclusion of Trial to mark his presence;

¶27

(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty to steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations, the bail application is

¶29

allowed.

¶30

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶31

Prakash Narayan /- U T

Raushan Vishwakarma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raushan Vishwakarma 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

Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anagad Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Kailash Mahton @ Kailash Mahto @ Kailu Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Sudesh Kumar @ Suddeshwar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Nat Vs The State of Bihar