Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Mohammad Rahul @ Mohammad Istkhar @ Md. Rahul @ Rahul @ Md. IstkharversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner, directing release on a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties.

Summary

The petitioner, Mohammad Rahul, sought bail in a case (Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2026) arising from a charge under Sections 25(1‑AA), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act for alleged possession of a country‑made pistol. The prosecution alleged that the weapon was recovered from the petitioner and a co‑accused, while the petitioner claimed innocence, asserted that no weapon was seized from him, and argued that the seizure violated Section 105 of the BNSS. He also highlighted that a similarly situated co‑accused had been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 19754 of 2026 and that he had been in judicial custody since 3 September 2025. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s two prior criminal cases. After hearing both sides, the court found the circumstances warranted bail and ordered the petitioner to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act offences.
  • Whether the seizure of the weapon complied with Section 105 of the BNSS.
  • Impact of the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents on bail eligibility.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Arms Act
  • seizure
  • Section 105
  • criminal antecedent
  • judicial custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22953 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
                 ======================================================
                 Mohammad Rahul @ Mohammad Istkhar @ Md. Rahul @ Rahul @ Md.
                 Istkhar son of Jahangir Resident Of Village- Itahari, Ward no. 2, Ps- Gogari,
                 Dist- Khagaria

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2026 arising out of Gogari P.S.

                   Case No. 225 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable

                   under Sections 25(1-AA), 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

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

                   country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of this

                   petitioner. It is further alleged that the recovery of weapon was

                   also made from co-accused.

                                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. 22953 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     case. He also submits that nothing has been recovered from the

                     possession of the petitioner. The witnesses of the seizure list are

                     police personnel and the police has not complied with Section

                     105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. He further submits

                     that similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by this

                     court vide Cr. Misc. No. 19754 of 2026. Moreover, the

                     petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.09.2025.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State and submits that the petitioner has criminal

                     antecedent of two 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 District

                     & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khagaria in connection with

                     Sessions Trial No. 42 of arising out of Gogari P.S. Case No. 225

                     of 2025.


                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.