BABLU SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsels. 1. The petitioner is an accused in this case for the offence registered under Sec. 25(1-B) (a), 26(3) and 35 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police have recovered 5 cartridges, which was kept in the refrigerator, in the presence of the wife of the petitioner, who is co-accused in this case. The petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. According to the seizure list, two persons, namely, Kallu Singh and Asha Giri, who have inimical terms with the petitioner, were present, when the seizure list was prepared. Admittedly, there is no signature of the petitioner on the seizure list and, therefore, based on the inimical terms of the seizure witnesses, the seizure itself is doubtful and that the wife of the petitioner was very much present at the relevant time but her signature was not taken. The learned counsel has further submitted that as per the seizure list, 5 cartridges were recovered from the refrigerator, therefore, the same could not be used in the crime. The learned counsel has further submitted that the wife of the petitioner, namely, Geeta Devi, has been granted bail by this Court in BA No. 6445 of 2023 vide order dtd. 1/8/2023, therefore, he seeks parity. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody since 25/2/2023. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted privilege of bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has another criminal antecedent and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to be scot-free in the Arms Act.