Patna High Court

CHANDAN BHAGAT @ LADENversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 18 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

The appellate court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge of illegal arms manufacturing and possession, and therefore set aside the conviction.

Summary

The appellant, Chandan Bhagat, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, for illegal manufacturing and possession of firearms under Sections 25(1)(a) and 26(11) of the Arms Act, based on a police raid that allegedly recovered gun‑making tools and gunpowder from his house. The prosecution’s case relied solely on the testimony of police officers and chaukidars, with no independent witnesses, forensic report, or clear identification of the seized items as weapons. The defence argued that the seized materials were ordinary household tools, that key witnesses denied seeing any seizure, and that the prosecution failed to prove knowledge or exclusive possession required under the Arms Act. The High Court examined the credibility of the police witnesses, the lack of forensic confirmation, and the procedural deficiencies in the Section 313 examination, concluding that the prosecution did not establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had knowledge of and exclusive possession of illegal firearms or manufacturing materials.
Whether the seizure of alleged weapon‑making tools and gunpowder was properly documented and scientifically verified.
Whether the testimony of police personnel without independent corroboration satisfies the evidentiary requirements under the Arms Act.
Whether the trial court complied with the requirements of Section 313 CrPC in putting material circumstances to the accused.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1)(11)(111), 25(1-A), 25(1)(a), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)c, 26(11)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313, 342
Explosive Substances Act — s. 3, 4, 5

Subjects

Arms Act
illegal firearms manufacturing
possession
seizure evidence
forensic report
Section 313 CrPC
conviction quashed
evidence credibility

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.895 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2014 Thana- Kharagpur District- Munger
======================================================
Chandan Bhagat @ Laden Son of Vindeshavari Bhagat Resident of Village -
Dariyapur, P.s.- Gangta , Distt.- Munger.

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

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Satya Narayan Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026

1. Heard the parties.

2. The present appeal preferred by appellant,

namely, Chandan Bhagat @ Laden against judgment of

conviction dated 31.01.2022 and order of sentence dated

03.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge V th,

Munger in connection with Sessions Trial No. 114 of 2015,

whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.

2,000/- under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and further

sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.

2000/- under Section 26(11) of the Arms Act, in default of

payment of fine, the learned trial court ordered the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
2/16

to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and further

ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Case of prosecution in brief as it appears that

ASI recorded his self-statement alleging that on 26 April

2016 he received secret information that appellant was

illegally manufacturing and selling firearms from his house

and could be arrested if a raid was conducted. Acting on this

tip-off, the informant reached the accused house at about

3:30 PM and saw a person closing the gate, who escaped

despite police efforts to apprehend him. Through local

choukidar Anil Mishra and Md. Akul, the person was identified

as appellant. As no one agreed to act as a witness, the police

entered and searched the house, recovering from the

courtyard several mini gun factory instruments, including a

drill machine, bhanti, half-manufactured barrel, iron chisel,

reti, 25 grams of gunpowder, two iron triggers, and a gas

cutter, after which a seizure list was prepared.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written information,

Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2014 was lodged under

under Section 25(1-A), 25(1-AA),25(1-B)c, 25(1)(11)(111)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
3/16

of the Arms Act and 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act against

the appellant.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has

examined altogether four witnesses. They are:-

Prosecution
Witnesses No(s). Names
P.W. 1 Shambhu Kr. Paswan, In-
charge of Gangta P.S.
P.W. 2 Mukesh Paswan, I.O
P.W. 3 Dinesh Kr. Singh
P.W. 4 Girjan Prasad
P.W. 5 Indrajeet Singh
P.W. 6 Md. Abul (Choukidar)
P.W. 7 Anil Kr. Mishra
(Choukidar)
P.W. 8 Prem Nandan Prasad
6. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has

also relied upon following documents/exhibits in order to

prove the charges:-

Exhibit No(s). List of documents
Exhibit-1 Seizure list
Exhibit-1/1 Signature of witness Md.
Abdul on Seizure list
Exhibit-1/2 Signature of witness Anil
Kr. Mishra on Seizure list
Exhibit-2 Self written statement
Exhibit-3 Endorsement of self
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
4/16

written statement
Exhibit-4 Formal FIR
Exhibit-5 Weapon inspection report
Exhibit-6 Signing of Prosecution
Sanction order

7. On the basis of evidences, as surfaced during

the trial, the appellant/convict was examined under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C., where he denied all incriminatic

evidences as surfaced against him during trial and claimed

his complete innocence and false implication.

8. Neither any defence witness nor any

document was exhibited in support of defence by

appellant/convict.

9. Upon the basis of evidences as surfaced

during the trial and also by taking note of the argument as

advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties, the learned trial court convicted appellant/convict

and passed order of sentence, as stated hereinabove.

10. Being aggrieved with aforesaid judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, the appellant/convict

preferred the present appeal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
5/16

11. Hence the present appeal.

Argument on behalf of the

appellant/convict:

12. It is submitted by learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant/convict that maximum

seized materials during the course of raid appearing

household materials and, therefore, allegation qua

manufacturing of fire-arms is completely baseless against

the appellant. It is submitted that during trial, PW-4

namely, Girjan Prasad and PW-5 namely, Indrajeet Singh,

who are seizure list witnesses, categorically deposed that

nothing was recovered before them, even PW-4 stated that

no seizure list was prepared before him. He, even, failed to

identify the appellant/convict. Interestingly, these two

witnesses are from the same department, but did not

supported the factum of raid and seizure, as alleged,

against the appellant/convict.

13. It is submitted that learned Trial Court

ought to have held that the prosecution has miserably failed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
6/16

to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The entire

prosecution case rests solely upon the testimonies of police

personnel, with no independent witness coming forward

either to support the alleged occurrence or the seizure.

Such absence of independent corroboration seriously dents

the credibility of the prosecution story and renders the

conviction unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further

submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate

the material contradictions and discrepancies appearing in

the oral testimonies of the material witnesses and the

informant, particularly regarding the manner of occurrence

and the alleged seizure of articles. These inconsistencies go

to the root of the prosecution case. Moreover, no FSL report

has been produced to establish that the seized powder was

in fact gunpowder. In the absence of any scientific

confirmation, the prosecution’s claim regarding seizure of

25 grams of gunpowder remains unsubstantiated and

doubtful. It is also submitted that several police witnesses

themselves admitted that the seized articles are capable of

domestic use and bore no specific identifying marks. This
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
7/16

admission further weakens the prosecution case.

Additionally, the alleged recovery was made from a joint

house, making it highly difficult to ascertain from whose

exclusive possession or room the articles were recovered.

The learned Trial Court failed to properly consider these

vital aspects, thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice.

14. In support of submission, learned counsel for

the appellant relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble

Supreme Court as available through Sukhjit Singh v.

State of Punjab, (2014) 10 SCC 270 and Mohmed

Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat

reported in (2018) 10 SCC 501.

Argument on behalf of State:

15. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State

categorically submitted that recovery was made from the

house of the appellant/convict, but fairly conceded that said

house appears joint property in view of deposition of PW-1.

16. I have perused the trial court records carefully

and gone through the evidences available on record and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
8/16

also considered the rival submissions as canvassed by

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

17. As to re-appreciate the evidences, while

disposing the present appeal, it would be apposite to

discuss the evidences available on record, which are as

under:-

18. PW-1 namely, Shambhu Kr. Paswan

deposed that on 26.04.2014 while posted as Officer-in-

Charge of Gangta Police Station, he received secret

information regarding illegal arms manufacturing by the

accused. Acting upon the information, he conducted a raid

along with police personnel and Choukidars, during which

one person allegedly fled and was identified as the accused.

Certain manufacturing items were seized from the house.

However, in cross-examination, he admitted that the

accused had a brother but he did not know their names or

whether they lived jointly. He further stated that no

documentary label was attached to the seized articles, only

marker identification was used, and he was unaware
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
9/16

whether the seized items were produced before the Court or

sent for expert examination. He also admitted that the

seized tools could be used for domestic purposes such as

making agricultural implements or drilling walls/doors.

19. PW-2 namely, Mukesh Paswan in his

cross-examination, deposed that no FSL report had been

furnished to him. He further stated that statement of

persons residing near the boundary were not recorded,

suggesting lack of independent corroboration. He also

admitted that the seized articles were kept in the Malkhana

where many other articles were already stored, raising

doubt regarding identification and preservation of the

alleged seized materials.

20. PW-3 namely, Dinesh Kr. Singh stated in

his cross-examination that the seized articles were of the

type commonly used for general domestic purposes and

that no identifying marks were inscribed on them. This

testimony cast doubt on the exclusive linkage of the articles

with illegal arms manufacturing.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
10/16

21. PW-4 namely, Girjan Prasad deposed that

no seizure was made in his presence. He further stated that

tools such as chisel and hammer, allegedly seized, are

capable of being used for various ordinary works, thereby

weakening the prosecution claim regarding their specific

illegal use.

22. PW-5 namely, Inderjit Singh stated in

cross-examination that he could not say in whose house the

raid was conducted. He further admitted that he had not

seen any seized item during the raid and was unable to

identify the accused, which seriously affected the credibility

of the prosecution’s version.

22. PW-6 namely, Md. Abul deposed that on

26.04.2014, while posted as Chowkidar at Gangta Police

Station, he accompanied the Station House Officer, a Saif

Bal personnel, and Chowkidar Anil Mishra to raid the house

of accused at Dariyapur. During the raid, semi-finished

firearm parts and manufacturing materials were recovered,

and a seizure list was prepared in his presence bearing his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
11/16

signature (Exhibit 1/1). He also identified the accused in

court. In his cross-examination, PW-6 admitted he

remained outside the house during the raid, did not see the

actual recovery, and did not know the contents of the

seizure list, identifying the accused mainly because he was

from his village.

23. PW-7 namely, Anil Kumar Mishra similarly

stated that he joined the raid with the police team on secret

information about illegal arms manufacturing, recovery of

weapons-making materials was made, and he signed the

seizure list (Exhibit 1/2) and identified the accused. In his

cross-examination, PW-7 also admitted he was outside the

house, did not witness the recovery, and could not say from

which room the items were seized, though he maintained

the incident occurred.

24. PW-8 namely, Prem Nandan Prasad

proved the prosecution sanction, stating that on

09.08.2014 sanction for prosecution under relevant Arms

Act sections against the accused was granted by the then
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
12/16

District Magistrate, whose initials he recognized on the

sanction order (Exhibit-6). In his cross-examination, PW-8

stated the sanction order was neither typed nor signed in

his presence; no police reports were attached; he did not

know who obtained the District Magistrate’s signature; and

the order lacked the DM’s full signature, though he denied

fabrication and affirmed receiving court summons.

25. In this context, it would be apposite to

reproduce para 10 to 13 of Sukhjit Singh case (supra)

which reads as follows:-

“10. On a studied scrutiny of the questions put under
Section 313 CrPC in entirety, we find that no
incriminating material has been brought to the notice of
the accused while putting questions. Mr Talwar has
submitted that the requirement as engrafted under
Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality. To buttress
the aforesaid submission, he has drawn inspiration from
the authority in Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar [(2009) 6
SCC 595 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 92] . Relying upon the
same, he would contend that when the incriminating
materials have not been put to the accused under Section
313 CrPC it tantamounts to serious lapse on the part of
the trial court making the conviction vitiated in law.
11. In this context, we may profitably refer to a four-
Judge Bench decision in Tara Singh v. State [1951 SCC
903 : AIR 1951 SC 441 : (1951) 52 Cri LJ 1491]
wherein, Bose, J. explaining the significance of the
faithful and fair compliance with Section 342 of the Code
as it stood then, opined thus: (AIR pp. 445-46, para 30)
“30. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of
observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Section
342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not a proper
compliance to read out a long string of questions and
answers made in the committal court and ask whether the
statement is correct. A question of that kind is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
13/16

misleading. It may mean either that the questioner wants
to know whether the recording is correct, or whether the
answers given are true, or whether there is some mistake
or misunderstanding despite the accurate recording. In
the next place, it is not sufficient compliance to string
together a long series of facts and ask the accused what
he has to say about them. He must be questioned
separately about each material circumstance which is
intended to be used against him. The whole object of the
section is to afford the accused a fair and proper
opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear
against him. The questioning must therefore be fair and
must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate
person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even
when an accused person is not illiterate, his mind is apt to
be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. He is
therefore in no fit position to understand the significance
of a complex question. Fairness therefore requires that
each material circumstance should be put simply and
separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is
perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and
understand. I do not suggest that every error or omission
in this behalf would necessarily vitiate a trial because I
am of opinion that errors of this type fall within the
category of curable irregularities. Therefore, the question
in each case depends upon the degree of the error and
upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to
have been occasioned. In my opinion, the disregard of the
provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
is so gross in this case that I feel there is grave likelihood
of prejudice.”
12. In Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya
Bharat [1951 SCC 1060 : AIR 1953 SC 468 : 1953 Cri LJ
1933] , Bose, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench
highlighting the importance of recording of the statement
of the accused under the Code expressed thus: (AIR pp.
469-70, para 8)
“8. Now the statements of an accused person recorded
under Sections 208, 209 and 342, Criminal Procedure
Code are among the most important matters to be
considered at the trial. It has to be remembered that in
this country an accused person is not allowed to enter the
box and speak on oath in his own defence. This may
operate for the protection of the accused in some cases
but experience elsewhere has shown that it can also be a
powerful and impressive weapon of defence in the hands
of an innocent man. The statements of the accused
recorded by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions
Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in
England and in America he would be free to state in his
own way in the witness box.”
13. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Ajay
Singh v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 12 SCC 341 :
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
14/16

(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 371] in following terms: (SCC pp.
347-48, para 14)
“14. The word ‘generally’ in sub-section (1)(b) does not
limit the nature of the questioning to one or more
questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it
means that the question should relate to the whole case
generally and should also be limited to any particular part
or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way
as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain,
what are the circumstances which are against him and for
which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the
section is to afford the accused a fair and proper
opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear
against him and that the questions must be fair and must
be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate
person will be able to appreciate and understand. A
conviction based on the accused's failure to explain what
he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole
object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the
attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific
points in the charge and in the evidence on which the
prosecution claims that the case is made out against the
accused so that he may be able to give such explanation
as he desires to give.”

26. It would be apposite to reproduce para no.

20 of Mohmed Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh case

(Supra) which is as under :-

20. In Gunwantlal v. State of M.P. [Gunwantlal v. State of M.P.,
(1972) 2 SCC 194 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 678] , this Court held that a
person cannot be charged with the offences unless it can be
shown that he had the knowledge that any sort of prohibited item
was present in his house.

“5. … In some cases under Section 19(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 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
15/16

dominion of the person over it necessary to determine whether
that person was or was not in possession of the thing in question.”
(SCC p. 198, para 5)

28. Considering aforesaid discussions it appears

that prosecution failed to answer several questions during the

trial, which creates a serious doubt qua crime in question,

benefit of which must be extended to the appellant.

29. Considering the aforesaid discussions and by

taking note of fact in particular that even the seizure list

witness P.W.-6 and 7 failed to support the seizure and denied

any recovery in their presence, prosecution failed to establish

recovery of alleged fire arms from conscious physical

possession of this appellant on the basis of available evidence.

30. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed.

31. The impugned judgment of conviction dated

31.01.2022 and order of sentence dated 03.02.2022 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge Vth, Munger in Sessions

Trial No. 114 of 2015 arising out of Kharagpur P.S. Case No.

106 of 2014 is hereby set aside/quashed.

32. Accordingly, above named appellant is

acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
16/16

33. Appellant is on bail, upon his acquittal,

bailors and sureties stands discharged from their liabilities.

34. Office is directed to send back the trial court

records along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court,

forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.02.2026
Transmission Date 18.02.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…