Patna High Court
Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the allegation rested solely on a confessional statement of another accused, which lacks evidentiary value, and the petitioner must be subjected to investigation and interrogation.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Sections 25(1‑B) and 26 of the Arms Act and Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. The police had recovered a country‑made pistol from another individual arrested near Kach Bihari School, and the only link to the petitioner was a confessional statement made by that arrested person while in custody. The State opposed bail, arguing that the confession had no evidentiary value and that the petitioner needed to be investigated and interrogated. The court examined whether a confession of a co‑accused could form a basis for granting anticipatory bail. Concluding that the confession alone was insufficient and that further investigation was required, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted when the sole basis of accusation is a confessional statement of another accused?
- Does the petitioner’s prior case, unrelated to the current charges, affect the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B), 26
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- evidentiary value
- Arms Act
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25160 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2026 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Son of Upendra Rai @ Opi Ray @ Satya Narayan Ray
Resident of Village- Simarwara, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State .
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B) a/26 of Arms
Act and Section 37 of Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment)
Act, 2022.
3. Petitioner has antecedent of one case and informant
alleges that on 11.01.2026 while he was on patrolling duty near
Kach Bihari School, it is was observed that four persons were
trying to flee upon seeing the police vehicle. Accordingly, one
person was arrested in intoxicated condition and during search,
one country-made pistol was recovered, it is next submitted that
the petitioner was not arrested on the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25160 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/2
implicated in the instant case based on confessional statement of
apprehended person in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that it is not a case
under the Excise Act rather the informant alleges that by
chance, an accused was apprehended with arms and based on
his disclosure, the name of the petitioner transpired, it is also
submitted that from perusal of para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application, it would manifest that petitioner has antecedent of
one case which is not under the Excise Act, it is thus submitted
that case requires to be investigated and the interrogation of the
petitioner is required
5. Considering the submission made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail
of this petitioner is dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-
U T
Checking your session…