RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused of an offence under S.25 of the Arms Act, for allegedly he was found in possession of a country-made pistol. S. 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, has been employed, as concededly there is a notification by the Haryana State Government making all the provisions of the Arms Act applicable to the territories of Haryana under the said provision. It would be useful to reproduce S. 6 herein :-

(2.) In the matter of bail, under the Act, a heavy burden has been cast by the legislature to be shouldered proportionately by the Public Prosecutor and the court This is evident from the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of S. 17. It reads as follows :-

(3.) The learned Advocate-General has strongly opposed grant of bail to the petitioner. He contends that he is a previous convict and has to his discredit more than 10 convictions. He even tried to mislead the investigating agency by giving false names, In this situation, I see no reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence for which he is charged. Further in this situation, I see no reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence for which he is charged. Further, I cannot record satisfaction that while on bail he is not likely to commit any offence. Bail to the petitioner is thus declined. Petition dismissed.