Patna High Court
AZAD MIAN @ MD.AZADversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The appellant was in conscious (constructive) possession of the arms and explosives, and the conviction under Sections 25(1‑B) and 26 of the Arms Act stands.
Summary
Azad Mian was convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 25(1‑B) and 26 of the Arms Act for possession of eight improvised explosive devices, a country‑made pistol and live cartridges recovered from his bag. The prosecution relied on the testimony of nine police witnesses, a seizure list, forensic laboratory report and other documentary evidence. The appellant contended that the evidence lacked independent corroboration, that there were procedural lapses in the seizure and sealing of the items, and that the sentence was excessive given his custodial period and first‑offence status. The High Court examined the testimonies, noted the absence of civilian witnesses and some irregularities, but held that the police witnesses sufficiently established conscious (constructive) possession. Applying the Apex Court’s doctrine on possession, the Court affirmed the conviction, modified the term of rigorous imprisonment to credit the two‑and‑a‑half years already served, discharged the bail bond and ordered refund of any fine paid. The appeal was therefore partly allowed. The judgment also clarified that procedural safeguards under Section 100(6) of the CrPC, while important, did not defeat the core finding of possession.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence on record establishes conscious possession of arms and explosives under Sections 25(1‑B) and 26 of the Arms Act.
- Whether procedural irregularities, including lack of independent witnesses and non‑compliance with Section 100(6) of the CrPC, warrant setting aside the conviction.
- Whether the sentence should be altered in view of the time already spent in custody and the appellant’s eligibility for probationary relief.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑B), 26
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 100(6), 360, 361
- Explosive Substances Act — s. 3, 5
Subjects
- arms possession
- constructive possession
- explosive devices
- procedural irregularities
- seizure list
- Arms Act conviction
- sentence modification
- probation of offenders
- evidence evaluation
- police testimony
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.644 of 2010
======================================================
Azad Mian @ Md.Azad Son of Late Nur, resident of village Tabalpur, P.S.
Lodipur, District Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-04-2026
Heard Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. The appellant has preferred the present criminal
appeal against the judgment dated 28.05.2010 and order of
sentence dated 31.05.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 459 of
2009 by Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Bhagalpur,
whereby, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant
under Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced
him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years along with a
fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of deposit of fine to further
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. The sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment
primarily on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to
appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
2/18
perspective and has erred in recording the conviction of the
appellant.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
March 2, 2009, the informant, S.I. Ajay Kumar Mishra (P.W.1),
received confidential intelligence regarding the assembly of
armed miscreants near Bhola Nath Pul with the intent to commit
an offence. Based on the above information, the police party
conducted search and recovered eight improvised bombs from a
bag (jhola) carried by the appellant, alongwith a country-made
pistol and six live cartridges. A seizure list was prepared on the
spot. The police registered Ishakchak P.S. Case No. 11/09 under
Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 5
of the Explosive Substance Act. Following the completion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge
sheet, and the appellant was put on trial after the case was
committed to the Court of Session.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole
appellant submitted that the appellant challenges the impugned
judgment of conviction primarily on the ground that it is
unsustainable both in law and on facts, as the prosecution's case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
3/18
rests exclusively on the testimony of official police witnesses
without any independent corroboration, despite the alleged
apprehension occurring in a populated public vicinity. It is
contended that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the
material contradictions in the seizure procedure and the
procedural lapses during the investigation, including the fact
that the recovered items were not sealed at the spot.
Furthermore, the appellant argues that the sentence is excessive
and severe, failing to account for the substantial custodial period
already undergone since March 2, 2009, and that as a first-time
offender with no prior criminal antecedents, the appellant was
entitled to the statutory benefits of the Probation of Offenders
Act under Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
6. Per Contra, learned APP appearing for the State while
opposing the appeal submitted that the learned District court,
after considering all the evidences on record and exhibits
submitted on behalf of the parties during the course of trial, has
rightly convicted the appellants for said offences.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
7. Heard the parties.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
4/18
8. I have perused the lower court records and
proceedings and also taken note of the arguments canvassed by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
9. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal
contention urged on behalf of the parties, I have carefully
examined the case to find out whether the impugned judgment
warrants interference by this Court on the charge levelled
against the accused/appellant under Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of
the Arms Act.
10. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether four witnesses, namely:
1. P.W.1 – Ajay Kumar Mishra
2.P.W.2 – Ganesh Jha
3.P.W.3 – Janardhan Singh
4.P.W.4 – Baijnath Sah
5.P.W.5 – Baban Prasad
6.P.W.6 – Manoranjan Bharti
7.P.W.7– Suresh Chandra Mishra
8.P.W.8 – Kamleshwari Pandit
9.P.W.9 – Ram Naresh Singh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
5/18
11. The prosecution has also relied upon following
documents exhibited during the course of trial:
(i) Seizure List (Exhibit-1)
(ii) Written Statement (Exhibit-2),
(iii) Signature on FIR (Exhibit-3),
(iv) Seized Item Inspection Report (Exhibit-4),
(v) Forensic Science Lab Report (Exhibit-5),
(vi) Prosecution Sanction Order (Exhibit-6)
(vii) Pistol (Exhibit – I & II)
(viii) Bullets (Exhibit- III to III 7)
12. From the perusal of records, I proceed to analyse
the statements of the prosecution witnesses whether they have
supported the prosecution case.
(i) P.W.1 This witness has deposed that a police team
conducted a raid near the HP Oil Depot in Bhola Nath Pul
During the operation, he observed several individuals fleeing,
including one person who discarded a weapon subsequently, the
team apprehended Azad Mian, who was found in possession of
eight improvised explosive devices (steel container bombs
wrapped in red and black tape) inside a bag, a loaded .315 bore
country-made pistol in his waistband, and live ammunition in
his pocket. Another loaded pistol was recovered from the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
6/18
immediate vicinity. He supported that upon interrogation, the
accused disclosed that he and his associates, including Wasim
Lalu and Diamon Khan, were hired by Sunil Singh, Anand
Shukla, and Dhananjay Mandal to assassinate Kullo Yadav for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000, confirming that an advance of Rs.25,000
had been paid and weapons provided to execute the plot.
(ii) P.W.2 This witness has deposed that upon the
apprehension and search of Mohammad Azad, a loaded pistol
and six cartridges were recovered from his pocket, alongside
eight bombs found in a plastic bag. He corroborated that the
accused identified fleeing accomplices Wasim Lalu, Diamon
Khan, and Mohammad Raju, revealing a conspiracy to
assassinate Kullo Yadav (Kuldeep) orchestrated by Sunil Singh,
Dhananjay Mandal, and Anand Shukla for Rs.1,00,000, with an
initial payment of Rs 3,000. In cross-examination, he detailed
the crime scene's proximity to the HP depot and a shrine,
confirming that while the area was crowded, legal search
protocols were strictly followed and the recovered pistol was
serialized in the presence of the accused, leading to the formal
signing of the seizure list.
(iii) P.W.3. - This witness has deposed that during a
raid on March 29, 2009, near the Bhola Nath Pul, Petrol depot,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
7/18
Azad Mian was apprehended with a bag of bombs, a loaded
country-made pistol in his waistband, and six cartridges in his
pocket. He further noted the recovery of an additional loaded
pistol from the ground, discarded by one of the approximately
ten fleeing accomplices, and identified the accused in court.
During cross-examination, the witness confirmed that his
statement was recorded by Station In-charge Manoranjan Bharti
and verified his official posting at Tatarpur police station at the
time of the incident.
(iv) P.W.4.- This witness has deposed that on March
29, 2009, Mohammad Azad was apprehended with a country-
made pistol and six cartridges in his pocket, while another
discarded pistol was recovered near the railway line. He
identified the accused in court and, during cross-examination,
described the scene near the Bharat Petroleum boundary wall,
noting that the seized iron pistol was less than a foot long. He
further clarified that while the seizure list was prepared at the
site, the recovered items were formally sealed at the police
station after being presented to senior officials, including the
Superintendent of Police.
(v) P.W.5. - This witness has fully supported the
prosecution's case in his examination-in-chief, testifying that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
8/18
Mohammad Azad was apprehended with a bag containing eight
bombs, a loaded pistol in his waistband, and six cartridges in his
pocket. The witness also noted the recovery of an additional
weapon discarded by a fleeing accomplice and identified the
accused in court. During cross-examination, he confirmed
providing a police statement and described the scene's
landmarks, including the Bharat Petroleum premises and a
peepal tree to the north, while verifying that the search and
identification protocols were followed.
(vi) P.W.6. - This witness has deposed that he Station
House Officer of Tatarpur, testified that during a coordinated
cordon on March 29, 2009, Mohammad Azad (alias Azad Mian)
was apprehended with a bag containing eight live bombs, a
loaded .315 bore country-made pistol in his waistband, and six
live cartridges in his rear pocket. The witness noted the recovery
of a second discarded loaded pistol and recorded the confession
of accused naming accomplices Wasim Lalu and Diamom Mian,
who were hired by Sunil Singh and Dhananjay Mandal to
assassinate Kullo Yadav. During cross-examination, the witness
detailed the site’s geography near the HP depot and the railway
line, confirming that independent witnesses were searched by
the SHO and that the seized weapons were formally wrapped in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
9/18
cloth and sealed at the scene using materials brought in police
vehicles.
(vii) P.W.7. - This witness has deposed that the
Investigating Officer, testified that during the investigation, he
inspected the crime scene located approximately 40 feet north of
the Bhola Nath pul and 25 feet east of the paved road leading to
the petrol pump. He described the site as being adjacent to the
Bharat Petroleum boundary wall, with access roads leading west
and south toward the Bhagalpur-Sahibganj railway line, which
lies 25 feet to the south. The witness noted a Peepal tree to the
north and the residence of Parvati Devi nearby. He confirmed
recording the statements of the complainant and the accused,
obtaining the forensic examination report for the seized itemsas
documented in the case diary and overseeing the disposal of the
recovered bombs.
(viii) P.W.8. - This witness has deposed that
Investigating Officer, testified that during the course of the
investigation, he obtained the formal prosecution sanction order
from the In-charge Deputy Collector of the Bhagalpur Legal
Cell and subsequently submitted the charge sheet against the
accused. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that
he did not record the statement of any witness in this case and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
10/18
could not identify the specific official in charge of the Legal
Cell. He further conceded that the sanctioning order was neither
signed nor marked in his presence, highlighting a lack of direct
involvement in the administrative execution of the legal
documentation.
(ix) P.W. 9. - This witness has deposed that the
forensic laboratory report related to Ishakchak P.S. Case No.
119/09 was signed by Senior Scientist S.N. Yadav of the Patna
FSL and officially submitted by the department. While
identifying the report as an exhibit, he admitted during cross-
examination that the document was not authored in his presence,
he had never personally worked with S.N. Yadav, and the report
was not formally marked or signed before him, confirming his
role was limited to producing the record in court.
13. On the basis of materials surfaced during the
trial, the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of
the Cr.PC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences
surfaced against him, which he denied and shows his complete
innocence.
14. It would be appropriate to reproduce the
provisions of Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act for the
sake of convenience and better understanding of the facts, which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
11/18
are as under:-
“25(1-B). Punishment for certain offences
Whoever—
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries
any firearm or ammunition in contravention
of section 3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries
in any place specified by notification under
section 4 any arms of such class or
description as has been specified in that
notification in contravention of that section;
or
(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does
not bear the name of the maker,
manufacturer’s number or other
identification mark stamped or otherwise
shown thereon as required by sub-section (2)
of section 8 or does any act in contravention
of sub-section (1) of that section; or
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or
sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his
possession or carries any firearm or
ammunition in contravention of that section;
or
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs,
tests or proves any firearm or ammunition in
contravention of clause (b) of sub-section (1)
of section 9; or
(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any
arms or ammunition in contravention of
section 10; or
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in
contravention of section 12; or
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as
required by sub-section (2) of section 3, or
sub-section (1) of section 21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in,
arms or ammunition, fails, on being required
to do so by rules made under section 44, to
maintain a record or account or to make
therein all such entries as are required by
such rules or intentionally makes a false
entry therein or prevents or obstructs
the inspection of such record or account or
the making of copies of entries therefrom or
prevents or obstructs the entry into any
premises or other place where arms or
ammunition are or is manufactured or kept
or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
12/18
such arms or ammunition or refuses to point
out where the same are or is manufactured or
kept, shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than 3[one
year] but which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any
adequate and special reasons to be recorded
in the judgment impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than 3[one
year].
26. Secret contraventions.―(1) Whoever
does any act in contravention of any of the
provisions of section 3, 4, 10 or 12 in such
manner as to indicate an intention that such
act may not be known to any public servant
or to any person employed or working upon
a railway, aircraft, vessel, vehicle or any
other means of conveyance, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months but
which may extend to seven years and also
with fine.
(2) Whoever does any act in contravention of
any of the provisions of section 5, 6, 7 or 11
in such manner as to indicate an intention
that such act may not be known to any public
servant or to any person employed or
working upon a railway, aircraft, vessel,
vehicle or any other means of conveyance,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than five years
but which may extend to ten years and also
with fine.
(3) Whoever on any search being made under
section 22 conceals or attempts to conceal
any arms or ammunition, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years and also with fine.
15. The record reveals that P.W.1 to P.W.6 have
generally supported the prosecution case regarding the raid,
apprehension of the accused, and recovery of bombs, pistol, and
cartridges however, their testimonies are mainly from police
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
13/18
officials and lack independent public corroboration despite the
place of occurrence being crowded. Further, P.W.8 and P.W.9 are
formal witnesses who admitted limited knowledge about key
aspects such as sanction and forensic reports, as these were not
prepared or signed in their presence. Minor inconsistencies also
appear regarding recovery and procedural compliance.
Therefore, while the prosecution version is broadly supported,
the absence of independent witnesses and procedural lapses
weaken the evidentiary value of the testimonies in establishing
guilt conclusively.
16. Section 100 (6) of the CrPc , mandates that a
search must be conducted and seizure list must be supported by
such witnesses, underscores the importance of procedural
fairness and transparency. In the present case, although the
seizure list was prepared by P.W.-1 (Ajay Kumar Mishra) and
was stated to have been signed by witnesses, the failure to
examine or properly present these witnesses during the course
of trial amounts to non-compliance with the mandatory
safeguards envisaged under Section 100 (6) of the CrPc. Such
omission weakens the prosecution’s case, as the evidentiary
value of the seizure list remains uncorroborated by independent
testimony, thereby casting doubt on the authenticity of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
14/18
search and seizure and failing to substantiate the allegations
against the appellant in accordance with the requirements of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
17. Upon a careful and comprehensive
consideration of the entire evidence on record and the law laid
down by the Apex Court, it is evident that the prosecution
witnesses have consistently supported the case regarding
apprehension of the accused and recovery of arms and
explosives from his possession, which establishes his conscious
possession in light of the principles settled by the Apex Court. A
reference, in this regard, can be taken from the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Gunwantlal vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in (1972) 2 SCC 194 in para no. 5 which is
reproduced hereinafter :
“5. What is meant by possession in the context of
this section? Is it that the person charged should be
shown to be in physical possession or is it sufficient
for the purposes of that provision that he has
constructive possession of any firearm or
ammunition in contravention of Section 3 which
prohibits him to be in such possession without a
licence. It may be mentioned that under Section 19
of the Arms Act, 1878, an offence corresponding to
Section 25(1)(a) is committed if a person had in his
or under his control any arms or ammunition in
contravention of Sections 14 and 15 of that Act. The
word “control” under Section 25(1)(a) has been
omitted. Does this deletion amount to the
Legislature confining the offence only to the case of
a person who has physical possession or does it
mean that a person will be considered to be in
possession of a firearm over which he has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
15/18
constructive possession or over which he exercises
the power to obtain possession thereof when he so
intends? If the meaning to be given to the word
“possession” is that it should be a physical
possession only, then certainly the charge as framed
on the facts of the prosecution case will not be
sustainable but if the meaning to be given to the
word “possession” is wider than that of actual or
physical possession then it is possible, if the
evidence produced by the prosecution is such as
would sustain a finding, that he had constructive
possession on September 17, 1966, when he handed
it over to Miroo and Miroo handed it over to
Chhaganlal because if it was not seized from
Chhaganlal, the appellant could have at any time
got back the physical possession of the revolver
through Miroo. The possession of a firearm under
the Arms Act in our view must have, firstly the
element of consciousness or knowledge of that
possession in the person charged with such offence
and secondly where he has not the actual physical
possession, he has nonetheless a power or control
over that weapon so that his possession thereon
continues despite physical possession being in
someone else. If this were not so, then an owner of a
house who leaves an unlicensed gun in that house
but is not present when it was recovered by the
police can plead that he was not in possession of it
even though he had himself consciously kept it there
when he went out. Similary, if he goes out of the
house during the day and in the meantime some one
conceals a pistol in his house and during his
absence, the police arrives and discovers the pistol,
he cannot be charged with the offence unless it can
be shown that he had knowledge of the weapon
being placed in his house. And yet again if a gun or
firearm is given to his servant in the house to clean
it, though the physical possession is with him
nonetheless possession of it will be that of the
owner. The concept of possession is not easy to
comprehend as writers of Jurisprudence have had
occasions to point out. In some cases under Section
19(1)(f) of the Arms Act, 1878 it has been held that
the word “possession” means exclusive possession
and the word “control” means effective control but
this does not solve the problem. As we said earlier,
the first precondition for an offence under Section
25(1)(a) is the element of intention, consciousness
or knowledge with which a person possessed the
firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence
and secondly that possession need not be physical
possession but can be constructive, having power
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
16/18
and control over the gun, while the person to whom
physical possession is given holds it subject to that
power and control. In any disputed question of
possession, specific facts admitted or proved will
alone establish the existence of the de facto relation
of control or the dominion of the person over it
necessary to determine whether that person was or
was not in possession of the thing in question. In
this view it is difficult at this stage to postulate as to
what the evidence will be and we do not therefore
venture to speculate thereon. In the view we have
taken, if the possession of the appellant includes the
constructive possession of the firearm in question
then even though he had parted with physical
possession on the date when it was recovered, he
will nonetheless be deemed to be in possession of
that firearm. If so, the charge that he was in
possession of the revolver on September 17, 1966,
does not suffer from any defect particularly when he
is definitely informed in that charge that he had
control over that revolver. It is also apparent that
the words “on or before” were intended to bring
home to the accused that he was not only in
constructive possession of it on September 17, 1966,
but that he was in actual physical possession of it
prior to that date when he gave it to Miroo. It is
submitted, however, that the word “on or before”
might cause embarrassment and prejudice to the
defence of the accused because he will not be in a
position to know what the prosecution actually
intends to allege. From a reference of Form XXVIII
of Schedule 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the mode of charging a person is that he “on or
about”… did the act complained of. In view of the
forms of the charge given in the Schedule to the
Code, we think that it would be fair to the appellant
if the charge is amended to read ‘on or about’
instead of ‘on or before’ which we accordingly
order.”
18. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report
has been referred to during the course of investigation. As per
the opinion of the expert, a prohibited and sensitive explosive
mixture of Arsenic Sulphide and Potassium Chlorate was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
17/18
detected in the contents of the first glass phial. Further, in the
second glass phial, a similar prohibited explosive mixture along
with Aluminium, Sulphur and Potassium Nitrate was detected.
The expert has opined that the samples at Sl. No. 1 and 2 were
constituents of country-made bombs.
19. However, certain procedural irregularities like
absence of independent public witnesses, and limited
evidentiary value of formal witnesses have been noted, though
they do not materially dislodge the core prosecution version
relating to recovery from the person of the accused-appellant.
20. In view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court and the facts and circumstances of the present case, it
appears that the appellant was apprehended in conscious
possession of incriminating articles, namely eight improvised
explosive devices recovered from a bag (jhola) carried by him,
along with a country-made pistol and six live cartridges
recovered from his possession. The said recovery from the
possession of the appellant clearly attracts the provisions of
Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act, and the learned trial
court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly
convicted the appellant thereunder.
21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.644 of 2010 dt.09-04-2026
18/18
case, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated
28.05.2010 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2010 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 459 of 2009 by Additional District and
Sessions Judge-IV, Bhagalpur, however, the sentence to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 3 years is modified to the period
already undergone by the appellant in custody i.e. two and half
years. Since the appellant is on bail, as such, he is discharged
from the liability of his bail bonds. The fine deposited by the
appellant, if any, shall be refunded to him.
22. The appeal stands partly allowed.
23. Office is directed to send back the lower court
records along with a copy of the judgment to the learned District
Court forthwith.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 17.04.2026
Transmission Date 17.04.2026
Checking your session…