IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50986 of 2008 BHOLA YADAV @ AJAY YADAV, S/o Late Puran Yadav Resident of village – Lemuabad, P.S. Pandarak, District – Patna. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 21.01.2009 Heard Sri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Dasrath Mehta, APP for the State. The petitioner was caught near the Barh police station by the police and on search was found carrying a country made pistol besides a cartridge of 3.15 and a cellular phone. The articles were seized and the petitioner was remanded in the case. The contention is that the copy of the seizure memo may indicate that column no. 1 of the document bears the full details of the police station case which was registered subsequent to preparation of the document. It is submitted that the mention of the very number of police station case indicates that the document was prepared subsequent to lodging of the FIR and that could indicate the fabrication. The argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner could be a fact to be looked into by the learned trial Judge because the person, who had prepared the document, could be giving explanation as to how he - 2 - mentioned the number of the police station case in column no. 1 of the document. Could not be it a possibility that the police had been written after the institution of the FIR when the informant and others had arrived at the place of occurrence. Regard being had to the recovery of the arms, the court is not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed. However, as soon as the petitioner completes one year of confinement from the first date of his remand din Barh P.S. Case No. 165 of 2008, if the trial is not concluded by that time, the court below shall itself release the petitioner on bail on execution of a bond to its own satisfaction. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)