Patna High Court

Bharosi RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Bharosi Ray, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, alleging that the seized weapons and ammunition were recovered from a hut that does not belong to him. The prosecution claimed the weapons were found in his hut and highlighted his alleged seven prior criminal cases. The petitioner contended that the seizure was made from a different person’s hut, that the police did not comply with Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. during the seizure, and that nothing was recovered from his possession. After hearing both sides, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s arguments and ordered bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and compliance with attendance requirements. The bail was granted subject to the petitioner’s cooperation in the trial and regular attendance at the police station.

Issues considered

What is the propriety of granting bail to the petitioner under the Arms Act offences?
Whether the seizure of the weapons complied with statutory requirements, particularly Section 105 of the B.N.S.S.?
Whether the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents preclude bail?

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1‑B)a, 26, 35
B.N.S.S. — s. 105

Subjects

bail
Arms Act
seizure
Section 105
criminal antecedent
judicial custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18783 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-438 Year-2025 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Bharosi Ray, Son of Late Shivjee Ray, Resident of Village- Ganjpar, P.S.-
                 Athmalgola, District- Patna


                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   24-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 438 of 2025 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the

                   Arms Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from

                   the hut of Bharosi Rai, one country made rifle, two country

                   made pistols and 10 live cartridges were recovered.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

                   committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18783 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
                                            2/3




          case. From perusal of the seizure list it will transpire that the

          seizure was made from one Ram Padarath Ray. It is the case of

          the police that the hut belongs to the petitioner whereas it is the

          specific case of the petitioner that the hut does not belong to

          him. It has further been submitted that nothing has been

          recovered from the possession of this petitioner. The witnesses

          of the seizure list are police personnel. Police has not complied

          Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. while making the seizure. Petitioner

          is languishing in judicial custody since 28.01.2026

                       5. Learned APP appearing for the State has

          vehemently opposed the application for bail and has submitted

          that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of seven cases.

                       6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

          considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

          inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

          petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

          bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

          of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

          S.D.J.M., Barh, District-Patna in connection with Athmalgola

          P.S. Case No. 438 of 2025 with the following conditions:-

                       (i) The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and

          shall remain physically present on each and every date in
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18783 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
                                                         3/3




                       the learned trial Court.

                                    (ii) He shall also mark his weekly attendance at

                       Athmalgola P.S.


                                                         (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…