Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR, J
SUDIN @ SUDINA CHAUHAN @ BULLI CHAUHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent
CR. MISC./51800/2022
An accused is entitled to bail if he has been in custody for a significant period of time, the investigation is complete, and there is no likelihood of him absconding or influencing witnesses.
Headnote:
BAIL - ARMS ACT, 1959 - SECTION 25(1-B)A, 26, 35 - BAIL GRANTED - ACCUSED IN CUSTODY SINCE 18.04.2022 - INVESTIGATION COMPLETE - CHARGE-SHEET SUBMITTED - NO PREVIOUS CONVICTION - NO LIKELIHOOD OF ABSCONDING - NO APPREHENSION OF WITNESSES BEING INFLUENCED - BAIL CONDITIONS IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of a live cartridge, a Bajaj Discover motorcycle, and a mobile phone. The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 18.04.2022, that the investigation was complete, and that a charge-sheet had been submitted. The court also noted that the petitioner had no previous convictions and that there was no likelihood of him absconding or influencing witnesses.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as he had been in custody for a significant period of time, the investigation was complete, and there was no likelihood of him absconding or influencing witnesses.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner bail on the condition that he furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51800 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2020 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Sudin @ Sudina Chauhan @ Bulli Chauhan S/O Ramnarayan Noniya
Resident of village- Jamua, P.S.- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2
11-01-2023
This case is listed for hearing out of turn on
account of mentioning that the wife of the petitioner is
seriously ill and there is none to take care of her and her
minor children.
Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP
for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Madanpur P. S. Case No. 162 of 2020, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b) a, 26 and 35 of
the Arms Act, 1959.
The prosecution story as emerges from the FIR is
that when the informant with his police team went on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51800 of 2022(2) dt.11-01-2023
2/5
patrolling, he saw some persons standing near a petrol
pump. Thereafter, he tried to catch them but they fled away,
throwing one live cartridge, one red black Bajaj Discover
Motorcycle and one mobile phone. Then, seizure list of the
recovered articles was prepared.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that the recovery of the arms has
not been made from the conscious possession of the
petitioner and case against the petitioner is based only on
the basis of suspicion. He further submits that investigation
in this case is complete and charge-sheet has already been
submitted. However, he is not aware of the fact that charge
has been framed or not.
He further submits that the petitioner has been
languishing in jail since 18.04.2022.
It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has earlier been made
accused in 8 other cases, but in all these cases, he is on bail.
It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51800 of 2022(2) dt.11-01-2023
3/5
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one.
However, Ld. APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this application is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-
named, to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in
the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. Sessions
Judge, Aurangabad, in connection with Madanpur P. S. Case
No. 162 of 2020, after framing of charge, if not already
framed, on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner will make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required.
(ii) The petitioner will undertake that
investigation/trial will not hamper on account of his absence
or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police or the
court whenever his presence is required.
(iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51800 of 2022(2) dt.11-01-2023
4/5
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police
officer.
(iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has criminal antecedents other than
the disclosed one, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds
of the petitioner aft
