Patna High Court
Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations insufficient to deny bail.
Summary
Santosh Kumar was named in an FIR for alleged violations of Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act after a joint police operation recovered 99 cartridges. The prosecution’s case relied solely on the confessional statements of co‑accused Anil Kumar (Lalu Raut) and Jitendra Bhagat (Jitu), who claimed the cartridges were obtained from Rajiv of Samastipur and that Kumar was involved in the arms business. The petitioner argued that no material was found in his possession, that the co‑accused had already been granted regular bail, and that he has a clean antecedent. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail application. Considering the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and his clean record, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The order directed release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specified conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accusation against the petitioner is based solely on the confessional statements of co‑accused persons.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the regular bail of co‑accused justify the grant of anticipatory bail under the Arms Act offences.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- confessional statements
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15543 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2025 Thana- Bhimnagar District- Supaul
======================================================
Santosh Kumar S/o Sachinder Yadav R/o vill - Bhavanipur, P.S.- Phulkaha,
Distt.- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bhim Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2025, F.I.R
dated 30.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, on 29.09.2025 at 9
PM, he received secret information that illicit contraband and
arms were to be smuggled through the Bhimnagar–Birpur road.
A joint search team was formed and a car with two persons, Anil
Kumar @ Lalu Raut and Jitendra Bhagat @ Jitu, was
intercepted. Upon search, 99 cartridges were recovered from the
car. During interrogation, they disclosed that they had obtained
the cartridges from Rajiv of Samastipur and were involved in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15543 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/4
arms business along with Niku Singh and Santosh Kumar. A
seizure list was prepared and the matter was handed over to
Bhimnagar Police Station for legal action.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
name of the petitioner has transpired in the F.I.R. on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused Anil Kumar @ Lalu Raut
and Jitendra Bhagat @ Jitu, from whose possession the alleged
of arms and ammunition is said to have been made. It is the case
of the petitioner that nothing incriminating is said to have been
recovered from his constructive possession and is in no way
connected with these two persons and has falsely been
implicated for ulterior reasons. It has next been submitted that
both the co-accused, namely, Anil Kumar @ Lalu Raut and
Jitendra Bhagat @ Jitu have already been granted the privilege
of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Lastly, it
has been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused persons, who have already
been granted the privilege of regular bail by a Co-ordinate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15543 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/4
Bench of this Court and the petitioner has clean antecedent.
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Birpur, in connection with
Bhim Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15543 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
4/4
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…