IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10861 of 2008 LATTAR PATEL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04/ 27.08.2008 Heard. The petitioner is named in the FIR not because he was caught and was found in possession of the arms directly, rather, an accused was arrested and during questioning he revealed the place of concealment of arms and ammunitions as per details available to the court through the seizure memo. The place was a kitchen and that was belonging to the present petitioner as per the allegations. The petitioner submits that he had nothing to do with that abandoned house and he was residing at a different place having deserted that house in favour of his brother. In fact, no one was residing in the premises. The court could see reasons for giving a deserted look to the house and that reason is revealed by his kitchen being used as bare house for storing arms and ammunitions as described in the seizure memo. The contention next was that the petitioner has - 2 - remained in custody for one year. I believe that this case should go to the Court of Sessions for trial as it could be covered fully by the Provisions of Section 26 II Part. In addition the recovery is so huge as to making the period of custody irrelevant. Regard being had to the above facts, prayer for bail made on behalf of petitioner Lattar Patel is dismissed. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J)