IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36139 of 2009 RAM JANAM YADAV S/O RAM PRASAD YADAV VILL.- PAKARI, P.S.- KONCH, DISTT.- GAYA … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 05.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the offence in question under Sections 384, 386, 34 I.P.C. and 25(1-B)A,26,35 of the Arms Act would submit that even if the petitioner was arrested on the spot, there was no recovery from his conscious possession and in fact raiding police party has manufactured a seizure list by showing recovery of a country made rifle from the house of the petitioner. He would therefore submit that when the seizure list does not contain the signature of petitioner and there was also no independent witnesses supporting the seizure inasmuch as seizure-list has been signed by two chaukidars, the petitioner having no criminal antecedent and in custody since 20.7.2009 would deserve to be enlarged on bail. The submission of learned counsel for the 2 petitioner though attractive at the first blush cannot be ultimately accepted for the reasons that there was a joint seizure list involving recovery from the house of petitioner and personal body search of Vinay Yadav, Mahesh Yadav and also Mahadeo Yadav. Such operation of seizure was made by the raiding police party after apprehending them at the spot. A large number of communist literature was also recovered from the house of the co-accused Mahadeo Yadav as also explosive substance from the house of co-accused Vinay Yadav and also from the house of co-accused Mahesh Yadav which would only go to show that such a raid infact was made by the police and a joint seizure list was prepared. It is well settled that the technicality can overweigh the substantial justice and therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner questioning the entire seizure operation cannot be accepted. Once the validity of such seizure is upheld, the case of the petitioner even if not made out for other offences he would still be liable for offence under Arms Act in view of recovery of country made rifle from his house. 3 That being so, since the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, this Court would direct for release of the petitioner namely Ram Janam Yadav on bail after completing six months of his judicial custody i.e. on or after 20th January 2010 on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Gaya in connection with Konch P. S. Case No. 66 of 2009, subject to the conditions that one of bailors of the petitioner must be either of his parents or of his wife and that the petitioner shall remain present in course of trial and his absence on two consecutive dates during the trial will make him liable for cancellation of his bail. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)