Patna High Court

Tanveer Mansoor @ Tanbeer MansurversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The court held that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

Summary

Petitioner Tanveer Mansoor sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, where a pistol and cartridge were recovered from co‑accused Arbaj Ansari. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fled the scene, while the petitioner contended that his name was derived solely from the co‑accused’s confessional statement, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value, and that there was no compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed the bail. The court examined the nature and gravity of the offences and the evidentiary basis, concluding that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail plea was rejected, with the court indicating that regular bail could be considered if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving offences under the Arms Act.
Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused can form a basis for anticipatory bail.
Whether non‑compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, affects the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Arms Act
confessional statement
Section 103
bail jurisprudence
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14221 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Tanveer Mansoor @ Tanbeer Mansur Son of Zumman Mansur Resident of
                 Village- Jankinagar, P.S.- Basopatti, District- Madhubani
                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Archna Aanand, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Basopatti P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025, instituted for the

                   offences under Section 25(1-B) (a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

                               3. Prosecution case, in short, is that one country made

                   pistol along with one live cartridge has been recovered from the

                   possession of co-accused Arbaj Ansari. It is alleged that

                   petitioner managed to flee away from the place of occurrence.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The

                   name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of

                   confessional statement of apprehended co-accused person Arbaj

                   Ansari, which has no evidentiary value. Learned counsel for the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14221 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not arrested on the

                     spot. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya

                     Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It has been submitted on

                     behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has two criminal

                     antecedents.

                                 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                     opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Petitioner

                     is named in the F.I.R.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case, nature and gravity of offence, in my view, this is not

                     a fit case for anticipatory bail.

                                  7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

                     bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

                                  8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the

                     learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and

                     prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own

                     merit without being prejudiced by this order.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…