The Court declined to reconsider the prayer for bail as the petitioner was arrested under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act,1959.: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.223321 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 362 Year 2018 Thana GOVINDGANJ District East Sheikh Wajid Hussain @ S.K. Wazid Hussain aged about 37 years Male Son of Sheikh Shakil Resident of Village Chintamanpur P.S. Malahi District East Champaran. The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s Appearance : For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant Mr. Dilip Kumar Tandon Advocate Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma APP Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Tandon learned counsel the petitioner Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha learned counsel for the informant. 3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Malahi PS Case No. 362 of 2018 dated 07.12.2018 instituted under Sections 25(1 B)(a) 26 35 of the Arms Act 1959. 4. This is the second attempt for bail by the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.223321 dt.04 08 2021 2 4 petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 08.06.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 142820. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the allegation is that from the possession of the petitioner one loaded country made pistol and four live cartridges have been recovered and further recovery is from his bed. It was submitted that the petitioner was not caught while using the fire arms. Learned counsel submitted that another case i.e. Malahi PS Case No. 361 of 2018 had been filed on the same day in which the son of the informant of the said case is alleged to have shot dead by the petitioner in which the petitioner is facing trial. However learned counsel submitted that this is a case only under the Arms Act for recovery of the said fire arms. It was submitted that four other family members of the petitioner have been made accused in the present case and all others have been released on bail except for the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 13.02.2019. 6. Learned APP submitted that the Court has already considered the matter on merits while rejecting the prayer for bail on 08.06.2020 and there is nothing new to consider afresh such prayer. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.223321 dt.04 08 2021 3 4 7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner is a veteran criminal having two other criminal cases against him under grave sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act including 307 302 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that the present case cannot be seen in isolation for the reason that in MalahiPS Case No. 361 of 2018 the petitioner was the person who had shot and killed the son of the informant of the said case and within one hour the police upon raid had caught the petitioner along with the pistol and live cartridges and the said pistol has been found to have been used for firing in the other case which has resulted in the death of the victim. It was submitted that the other four family members of the petitioner have been granted bail in the present case since there was no recovery from their personal possession whereas in the present case the recovery is from the personal possession of the petitioner and the other firearms have been recovered from the bed in his room. It was further submitted that in the other case trial is in an advanced stage. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court is not inclined to re consider the prayer for bail to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.223321 dt.04 08 2021 4 4 petitioner as no mitigating circumstances have been shown to warrant the same. 9. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed. Anjani 

Summary: The petitioner was held in custody under Sections 25(1-B) (a) Arms Act, 1959, “acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3”, section 26, “Secret contraventions,”, section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959, “Criminal responsibility of persons in occupation of premises in certain cases.” This is in connection with Malahi (Govindganj) PS Case No. 362 of 2018 dated 07.12.2018. The petitioner is attempting bail the second time as it was earlier rejected by an order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14287 of 2020. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 4th of August 2021 in the case of Sheikh Wajid Hussain @ S.K. Wazid Hussain versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.22330 of 2021, Mr. Dilip Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Lakshmi Kant represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Prafull Represented as the advocate for the informant the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the counsel for the petitioners held that the petitioner was accused of possessing one loaded country-made pistol and four live cartridges were recovered from the petitioners’ bed. However, he was not caught whilst using the firearms. Further, the counsel submitted that the petitioner is facing trial in another case currently i.e., Malahi (Govindganj) PS Case No. 361 of 2018, where he was accused of shooting the informant’s son, but under this case, he is only accused of possession of firearms. The four other family members were also held accused of the same and have been released on bail but only the petitioner was declined bail more than once and has been held in custody since 12th February 2019. The Additional Public Prosecutor held that the court has already rejected this plea according to the order passed on the 8th of July 2020 and since there is no new evidence to prove his innocence the accused is accountable in accordance with the law. The counsel representing the informant held that the petitioner is also a veteran criminal and has two criminal cases against him which are serious in nature under grave sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, including 307,302 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. And according to the other case Malahi (Govindganj) PS Case No. 361 of 2018, the petitioner was the one who shot and killed the son of the informant, and the petitioner was caught in about one hour by the police and upon raid, they recovered the firearms and pistols and live cartridges, the petitioner has used these weapons to injure and harm lives. Regarding bail for the other four family members was because no recovery of firearms was made from them and hence was granted bail. The court concluded that “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail to the petitioner as no mitigating circumstances have been shown to warrant the same. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.”