Patna High Court

Brajmohan Kumar @ BirijmohanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 30 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SANDEEP KUMAR

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the court was not inclined to grant the privilege given the nature and gravity of the allegations.

Summary

The petitioner, Brajmohan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for alleged involvement in supplying ammunition to accused persons in a loot-planning case. The FIR alleged violations of Sections 110, 111(3), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s purported role in facilitating the offence. Considering the gravity of the accusations, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. The order expressly limits its observations to the present application and does not prejudice any future proceedings against the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the allegations of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 110, 111(3), 61(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal procedure
Arms Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
section 110
section 111(3)
section 61(2)
section 25(1-b)a
section 26
section 35

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19833 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2025 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Brajmohan Kumar @ Birijmohan son of Dinanath Rai @ Dinanath Yadav R/o
                 Village- Tetaria PS- Rajepur Distt- East Champran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Usha Kumari
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Mohammad Sufyan
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   30-04-2026                  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

                   learned counsel for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

                   Rajepur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025 registered for offences under

                   Sections 110, 111(3), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

                   2023 and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

                                3. The petitioner is named in the FIR. As per the FIR,

                   there is a specific allegation that the petitioner provided

                   ammunition to the accused persons who have been arrested.

                   Some criminals were caught while planning a loot, and the

                   petitioner has been named by them.

                                4. Having considered the materials on record, the

                   nature and gravity of the allegations and the role attributed to

                   the petitioner in facilitating the alleged offence, this Court is not
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19833 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

                      petitioner.

                                    5. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is

                      hereby rejected.

                                    6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made

                      herein are limited to the adjudication of the present application

                      and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any

                      subsequent stage of the proceedings.



                                                         (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.