Patna High Court
Shyam Babu Gop @ Shyam Babu RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not granted as the case is not a fit one for such relief under the Arms Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Shyam Babu Gop, was named in an FIR under sections 25(1b)a, 26, 27, 29 and 30 of the Arms Act for alleged possession of illegal arms. He applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and that his name was mentioned only because a co‑accused, who was a member of a security company, disclosed his involvement while being apprehended. The petitioner argued that no arms or mobile phones were recovered from him and that he had been acquitted or granted bail in several other cases. The State opposed the bail, contending that the FIR sufficiently detailed the alleged modus operandi and that the case was not suitable for anticipatory relief. The High Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant anticipatory bail, stating the case was not fit for such relief, but directed that if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, the trial court should decide his surrender‑cum‑bail application on the same day. The bail application was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act where the FIR is based on a co‑accused’s statement.
- Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR make the case unsuitable for anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1b)a, 26, 27, 29, 30
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- bail application
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10509 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2025 Thana- PATNA CITY CHOWK District- Patna
======================================================
Shyam Babu Gop @ Shyam Babu Ray S/o Late Lal Mohan Ray @ Late Lal
Mohan Gop Resident of - Kaimashikoh, Kauakhoh, P.S - Chowk, District -
Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Arya, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Chowk P.S. Case No. 388/2025 lodged on
25.09.2025, for the offences punishable under sections
25(1b)a/26/27/29/30 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been
lodged against ten named accused persons, including the present
petitioner, on the basis of recovery of arms from the possession
of the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further
submits that no arm has been recovered from the possession of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10509 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
the petitioner and his name has surfaced in the present case only
on the basis of the disclosure made by an apprehended co-
accused. It is submitted that the apprehended accused persons
disclosed before the police that they are members of the Patna
Bouncer Security Company and that they had gone to receive
the petitioner from Beur Jail and, after dropping him at his
residence, they were returning when they were apprehended by
the police. It is further submitted that there is no specific
allegation against the petitioner and he has no concern with the
recovered arms and mobile phones. Learned counsel also
submits that though the petitioner is stated to be an accused in
sixteen other criminal cases, he has already been acquitted in six
cases and in the remaining cases he has been granted bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail and submits that the entire modus operandi has
been explained in the F.I.R. He further submits that the grounds
taken on behalf of the petitioner may constitute a ground for
regular bail, but the present case is not a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail.
6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of
the petitioner in connection with the aforementioned case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10509 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
pending before the learned ACJM-VI, Patna City, Patna, is
hereby rejected.
7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the
Trial Court within six weeks from today, the Trial Court is
directed to pass an order on his surrender-cum-bail application
on the same day, without being prejudiced by the fact that the
petitioner’s anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
U T
Checking your session…