Rajnandan Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3655 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37742 of 2020
  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-313 Year-2019 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
 ======================================================

Rajnandan Yadav, aged about 26 years, Male Son of Gaurishankar Yadav, Resident of Santghat, PS - Bettiah Town, District - West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Dhannjay Kumar No 2, Advocate
 For the State            :       Mr. Md. Arif, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Dhannjay Kumar No. 2, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Chanpatiya PS Case No. 313 of 2019 dated 23.09.2019, instituted

under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

4. The allegation against the petitioner, though not

named in the FIR, is that when police on information had caught Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37742 of 2020 dt.23-07-2021

co-accused Anu Patel with firearms, he had later confessed before

the police that the same was given to him by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

neither was he caught at the spot nor there is anything to connect

him to the recovered firearm. It was submitted that only because

the petitioner is the brother of the Chairman of the District Board,

West Champaran, he has been falsely implicated as he is also

assisting his sister and was also assisting his brother-in-law who

was earlier the Chairman of the District Board, West Champaran.

Learned counsel submitted that the said confession before the

police is also not admissible as evidence. Learned counsel

submitted that at the time of lodging of the FIR, the arrested

person has not named the petitioner but only later before the

police, he has confessed in which the petitioner is said to be the

person who had given the firearms. Learned counsel submitted

that no substantial evidence has come before the police during

investigation and no offence is made out under the Act from the

FIR.

6. Learned APP submitted that first of all the petitioner

carries criminal antecedent as he is accused in Shrinagar PS Case

No. 67 of 2011 instituted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and

302 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further submitted that at the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37742 of 2020 dt.23-07-2021

time when the accused is caught, the police are yet to begin

investigation and only during investigation when a person is

interrogated, facts come out, which has happened in the present

case and is very natural. It was submitted that as far as the

evidentiary value of such confession is concerned, the same has to

be gone at the stage of trial where the parties shall adduce

evidence in support of such plea. Learned APP submitted that the

petitioner being the brother of the Chairman of the District Board

is in a powerful position and, thus, there cannot be any reason and

further, it cannot be believed that he would be falsely implicated.

He submitted that the petitioner could have been falsely

implicated in addition to the real culprit, but no other name having

been taken by the arrested person and admittedly illegal firearms

being recovered, the source of such firearms has to be explained,

which has been done by the arrested person. It was submitted that

since admittedly illegal firearms have been recovered and the

person from whom it has been recovered has stated that it was the

petitioner who had supplied the same to him clearly there is

enough material against him and supply of illegal arms also is an

offence under the Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37742 of 2020 dt.23-07-2021

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T