Patna High Court
Md. Jeyauddin @ JiyauddinversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner was implicated in a mini gun factory and possessed a prior similar conviction.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Jeyauddin, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under the Arms Act for alleged involvement in a clandestine firearms manufacturing operation at his residence. The FIR, based on secret information, led police to recover firearms and manufacturing materials, and identified the petitioner as an associate of the arrested individual, Ibrar Ali. The petitioner argued he had no direct involvement, was 75 years old, and was willing to cooperate, contending that his inclusion as an accused was solely due to his relation to Ibrar Ali. The State opposed bail, highlighting the recovery of substantial arm‑manufacturing equipment from the petitioner’s house and his prior conviction for a similar offence. Considering the seriousness of the alleged mini‑gun factory, the recovered evidence, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person accused under the Arms Act when substantial arm‑manufacturing material is recovered from his premises.
- Whether a prior conviction of a similar nature disqualifies the petitioner from obtaining anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s advanced age and willingness to cooperate mitigate the grounds for denying anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1-A), 25(1)(a), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-B)(c), 26(1), 26(2), 35
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- illegal arms manufacturing
- criminal antecedent
- high court
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13587 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2025 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
Md. Jeyauddin @ Jiyauddin Son of Late Md. Mazhar Resident of Mirzapur
Bardah, P.S.- Muffasil, District - Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-AA),
25(1-B)(a), 25(1-B)(c), 25(1)(a), 25(1-A), 26(1), 26(2), 35 of the
Arms Act.
3. As per the F.I.R., on secret information that the
arms were being manufactured, the informant along with police
personnel reached at the spot and saw two persons attempting to
flee, out of whom one was apprehended, who disclosed his name
as Ibrar Ali and also disclosed the name of the person who fled
away as Md. Jeyauddin (petitioner). Upon search of the house,
firearms and other incriminating articles were recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
First Information Report was lodged on the basis of a confidential
information that arms were being manufactured in the house of
one Ibrar Ali, who is the son of the present petitioner and upon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13587 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/2
raid, the said Ibrar Ali was arrested on the spot and the person who
fled away was named as present petitioner. It has further been
submitted that the petitioner does not have any connection with the
manufacture of arms etc., and he has been made an accused only
because of Ibrar Ali. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner is a man aged about 75 years and is ready to co-operate
in the investigation and trial.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail on the ground that recovery of several materials,
which include manufacturing materials of firearms, were
recovered from the house of this petitioner and the petitioner also
bears one criminal antecedent, which is also of similar nature, as
such, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
and also considering the fact that almost a mini gun factory is
running from the house of the petitioner and he has one criminal
antecedent of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As such, the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.334 of 2025.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…