IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15790 of 2007 AJAI KUMAR @ AJAI KUMAR SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner :Mr. U.S.Verms, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar No.2, APP. - - - - - 6. 26.03.2010 This is an application for quashing the order dated 19th March 2007 of the learned S.D.J.M., Patna passed in case No. P.W.R.P.S. 772 of 2006, G.R. 5058 of 2005 whereby charges alleged under Sections 25(1B)a, 35 and 26 of the Arms act have been ordered to be framed against the petitioner along with co- accused Dharmendra Kumar. The brief facts, as per FIR, was that Police Patrolling party was engaged in vehicle checking and in course of that one motor- cycle borne by two persons was found coming from Punpun side and when it came close, seeing the Police Party, the vehicle driver tried to escape away the Police checking and he spread away the motorcycle in an attempt to escape, but the motor-cycle was chased, surrounded and intercepted and the two persons riding the motor- cycle were apprehended. On such, one country-made pistol loaded with a live cartridge was recovered from the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar who was a pillion rider on the bike. The accused were arrested. Investigation was done, witnesses were examined and charge-sheet was submitted. After submission of charge-sheet, learned Chief judicial Magistrate took cognizance and thereafter in course of trial the learned Magistrate has ordered for framing of charge, vide impugned order as above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was simply the driver of the vehicle and no recovery of 2 any arms and ammunitions was made from his possession. Learned counsel says that the arms and ammunitions was recovered from the possession of co-accused Dharmendra Kumar, who was sitting behind the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had no knowledge about the existence of the arms and ammunitions recovered from the possession of co-accused Dharmendra Kumar. He also submits that there is no material to show that the petitioner was in any way involved in the possession or carriage of arms and ammunitions from the possession of co-accused Dharmendra Kumar. In reply, learned A.P.P. has referred to the basic fact in the FIR itself and it is pointed out that while the Police Party tried to stop the motor-cycle, the petitioner who was driving the motor-cycle did not stop and he tried to escape away and he also made several efforts to escape the Police checking, but the Police Party chased, surrounded and intercepted the bike and thereafter recovery was made. It is pointed out that the very conduct of the petitioner in not stopping the motor-cycle for checking and making all efforts to escape away is indicative of the fact that he was in know of the existence of the illegal arms and ammunitions which was being jointly carried by them. Learned A.P. P. refers to Section 35 of the Arms Act which makes the joint possession or possession from any premises or vehicle liable for all persons having joint control and knowledge of such possession, liable for the offence. In view of the facts that the petitioner while driving the motor-cycle had tried to escape away which is indicative of the 3 knowledge and joint possession of the arms and I feel that there was material for framing of the charge and the learned trial court ordered for framing of charge. In such view of the matter, I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner may take any defence during the trial as available to him under the law. Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad,J )