IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55154 of 2007 DILIP YADAV @ DILO YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 19.5.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case instituted under sections 25(1-b),26 of the Arms Act. It has been submitted that the petitioner was not apprehended with any fire-arm. As per the allegation, one person, namely, Ravindra Kumar Yadav was found at the house of the petitioner and in course of raid he tried to escape but was apprehended with certain fire-arms. In the FIR it has been alleged that in the courtyard of the house of the petitioner one country-made musket rifle and certain live cartridges were found. Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the supervision note (annexure-5), submits that the DIG has found the said allegation leveled against the petitioner to be interpolated allegation. He further submits that because of enmity with seizure list witnesses his name has been incorporated with the active connivance of the informant of the case. He also submits that there is no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Having considered the fact that the petitioner was neither arrested nor anything was recovered from his conscious possession as also the fact emanating from the supervision note, this Court directs that in the event of arrest/surrender - 2 - within four weeks, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Purnea in Rupouli (Mohanpur) p.s.case no.53/2007, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. HR ( Kishore K. Mandal )