Patna High Court
Pappu Kumar @ Prem BabuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The court denied regular bail as there were no fresh grounds to reconsider the earlier denial.
Summary
The petitioner, Pappu Kumar, is in judicial custody for alleged offences under Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959. He contends that he has been falsely implicated and has been in custody since 03‑03‑2025. He previously sought regular bail, which was denied on 16‑10‑2025, and has now filed a fresh bail application. The court examined whether any new ground exists to merit bail. Finding no fresh material or change in circumstances, the court held that the earlier denial remains valid. Consequently, the petition for regular bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the present circumstances
- Whether there are any fresh grounds justifying the grant of bail
- Whether the nature of the offences under the Arms Act precludes bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1‑B)(a), 26, 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- regular bail
- judicial custody
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10744 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2025 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Pappu Kumar @ Prem Babu S/o Nirdhan Paswan Resident of Village-
Shivnar, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Mokama, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
4 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with
Musrigharari P.S Case No. 27 of 2025 from the Court of learned
District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Samastipur/ In
charge Successor Court in Musrigharari registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 25 (1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act, 1959.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also
submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.03.2025.
It is next submitted that earlier prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10744 of 2026(4) dt.11-03-2026
2/2
16.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 54710 of 2025.
4. Since, earlier prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated
16.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 54710 of 2025. This time
also there is no fresh ground to consider his prayer for regular
bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not
inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner
is hereby rejected once again.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Mayank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.