Allowed

Sumit Kumar @ Jailar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Dec 2024CR. MISC./67867/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner applied for bail in Pandarak P.S. Case No. 8 of 2024 for offences under the Arms Act. High Court allowed bail on Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, directing physical presence and prohibiting similar offences.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by depositing Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount each; conditions of presence and no similar offences imposed.

Sumit Kumar @ Jailar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67867 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2024 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Sumit Kumar @ Jailar Yadav, (M), aged about 25 years, Son of Late Hare Ram Yadav, Resident of Village- Chhedatar, PS- Pandarak, PO- Pandarak, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Murli Manohar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Sharda Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 17-12-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 08 of 2024 dated 15.01.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act.

¶15

As per the prosecution case, one loaded country made katta alongwith 21 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67867 of 2024(4) dt.17-12-2024 2/3

¶18

present case. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has ten (10) criminal antecedents as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. The petitioner is in custody in this case since 16.01.2024.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail petition of the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. Ist, Barh in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 08 of 2024 with further conditions:-

¶21

(I) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.

¶22

II. If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, his bail

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67867 of 2024(4) dt.17-12-2024 3/3

¶24

bonds is liable to be cancelled.

¶25

The application stands allowed.

¶26

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶27

U.K./- U T

Sumit Kumar @ Jailar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar @ Jailar Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjit Kumar Singh @ Ranjeet Singh @ Manjeet Singh @ Manjeet Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dilchand Sao Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Azad @ Azad Vs The State of Bihar

Raja Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rudal Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar