Patna High Court
Mahakant ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Mahakant Thakur, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution’s case relied on a confessional statement of an accused, Jai Kumar, who claimed the pistol recovered from the petitioner’s house was given to him by Vijay. The police recovered a country‑made pistol and three live cartridges from the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner argued that the recovery was made without his knowledge and that he was being framed. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s two prior cases and the ongoing investigation. The court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the material before it sufficient to justify denial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act in view of the confessional statement and recovered weapon.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent criminal cases and the ongoing investigation justify denial of bail.
- Whether the manner of recovery of the pistol and cartridges defeats the petitioner’s claim of false implication.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- illegal possession of firearm
- confessional statement
- false implication
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17079 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2025 Thana- PRATAPGANJ District- Supaul
======================================================
Mahakant Thakur Son of Late Kamalkant Thakur Resident of Village -
Gobindpur, Ward No.- 5, P.S.- Pratapganj, District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Goutam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-04-2026 1. 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-B)(a), 26 and 35 of
the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that
four unknown accused persons on 07.07.2025 committed an
occurrence of loot for which Birpur P.S. Case No. 236 of 2025 was
instituted, during investigation of the aforesaid case, accused Jai
Kumar was arrested, who confessed of committing the crime of loot
on 07.07.2025 and also disclosed that pistol used in the occurrence
was given by Vijay to petitioner and the same can be recovered from
the house of the petitioner, accordingly, the house of the petitioner
was raided and from the garbage, a country made pistol along with
three live cartridges were recovered and, accordingly, the instant FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17079 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
2/2
was instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that even the alleged recovery of
country made pistol along with live cartridges was made behind the
back of the petitioner
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that based on
confessional statement of Jai Kumar, who was apprehended in Birpur
P.S. Case No. 236 of 2025, the house of the petitioner was raided
from where the country made pistol along with three live cartridges
was recovered based on which the instant FIR came to be instituted.
It is further submitted that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and
the investigation of the case is continuing.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Pratapganj
P.S. Case No. 157 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Supaul/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…