Patna High Court
Raushan Kumar @ Roshan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond and conditions, as the charge‑sheet was already filed and no compelling reason to deny bail was found.
Summary
The petitioner, Raushan Kumar, was arrested during a raid on a house where a loaded pistol and a mobile phone were seized from him. He was charged under Sections 310(4), 310(5), 317(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1‑Ba), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The petitioner argued that the search and seizure were conducted without an independent witness, violating mandatory provisions, and sought bail after being in custody since 7 December 2025. The State opposed the bail application. The Court, noting that the charge‑sheet had already been filed and considering the circumstances, ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance and a family member as one bailor.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the provisions of the B.N.S. and the Arms Act despite the seriousness of the offences.
- Whether the alleged violation of search‑seizure procedures warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- search and seizure
- Arms Act
- B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
- charge sheet
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19425 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-425 Year-2025 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Raushan Kumar @ Roshan Kumar S/O Amal Yadav Resident of Village-
Chak Mahuli, Police Station- Rosera, District Samastipur.
.. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pratik
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Anurag Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5), 317(5) of the
B.N.S. and Section 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per FIR, petitioner along with other accused
persons are involved in committing loot within the jurisdiction of
different police station. It is alleged that on search, one country
made loaded pistol and one Vivo company mobile phone was
recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it
would be evident from perusal of the First Information Report
itself that a raid was conducted in the house of one Rohit Kumar
and the petitioner was arrested from the said house and from his
possession one country made loaded pistol and a mobile phone
was recovered. It is further submitted that there was no
independent witness to the search and seizure as such mandatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19425 of 2026(3) dt.09-06-2026
2/2
provisions have been violated. The petitioner is in custody since
07.12.2025 and the charge-sheet has been submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet
has already been submitted, let the above named petitioner, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No.
425 of 2025, subject to the conditions that:
(I) One of the bailors would be the family member
or relative.
(II) The petitioner would appear physically on each
and every date in the learned court below and would cooperate in
the conclusion of trial and if the petitioner does not appear on two
consecutive dates without any substantial and satisfactory reason,
the learned court below would be at liberty to cancel his bail
bonds.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.