Patna High Court
Pawan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail after police raided his house in Shankarpur and recovered six live cartridges from a locked room, alleging violations of Sections 25(1‑b)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The petitioner claimed he was unaware of the cartridges, had no criminal record, and was falsely implicated. The court examined the FIR, seizure list and the impugned order, noting that the cartridges were indeed found inside the petitioner’s house. Considering that the investigation was ongoing and custodial interrogation might be required, the court found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act offences (Sections 25(1‑b)(a), 26, 35) given the facts of the case.
- Whether the stage of investigation and the need for custodial interrogation preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)(a), 26, 35
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- illegal arms
- seizure
- investigation
- custodial interrogation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24204 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2025 Thana- SHANKARPUR District- Madhepura
======================================================
Pawan Kumar S/o Rajendra Sah Resident of Village- Basantpur, Ward No. 15,
P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Shankarpur Police Station Case No. 264 of 2025, dated
16.12.2025, disclosing offences punishable under
Sections 25 (1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that the police, on secret information that the petitioner
had kept illegal arms in his house, raided the house of the
petitioner, but when the police asked him to open a room
which was locked, the petitioner fled away. The said room
was opened by the wife of the petitioner, from where the
police recovered six live cartridges.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24204 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/2
this case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that
the live cartridges were recovered from the roof outside
the house of the petitioner and the petitioner was not
aware about the seized articles. The petitioner has got no
criminal antecedent and the petitioner is a daily-wage
labourer.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material available on record, including the
impugned order.
6. From perusal of the impugned order, First Information
Report and the seizure list, it transpires that the illegal
live cartridges were recovered from the chhajja inside the
room in the house of the petitioner.
7. Considering the above and the fact that the case is under
investigation, wherein the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner may be necessary based upon the material
collected by the police during course of investigation, I
am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…