Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sintu Kumar @ SintuniaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner sought bail in a case registered under Sections 310(4), 310(5), 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was merely a passenger in a seized vehicle and that no weapons were found on his person. The prosecution alleged that a pistol and six live cartridges were recovered from the petitioner’s house and that the vehicle bore a government signboard. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was innocent, not the owner or driver, and that the police failed to comply with Section 105 of the B.N.S. during the seizure. The State opposed bail, citing two prior criminal cases against the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the court found the procedural lapse and lack of direct possession sufficient to grant bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act.
  • Whether the failure of police to comply with Section 105 of the B.N.S. during seizure affects the bail decision.
  • Whether the petitioner’s alleged status as a passenger and lack of possession of the seized weapons justify bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • B.N.S.
  • Arms Act
  • procedural lapse
  • seizure
  • criminal antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30168 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2026 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Sintu Kumar @ Sintunia Son of Ramjeevan Sangai @ Rameevan Sangai @
                 Ramjiwan Sangahi Resident of Village- Sadipur, P.S.- Ballia, District-
                 Begusarai
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv.
                                                  Mr. Amit Prakash, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER
2   07-05-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Ballia P.S. Case No. 52 of 2026 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5), 318(4) of the B.N.S.,

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

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

                   petitioner along with others were apprehended in a Scorpio

                   vehicle. On the sign board of the said vehicle, Government of

                   Bihar, D.P.O., Begusarai was written. It is alleged that from the

                   house of this petitioner, one country made pistol and six live

                   cartridges were recovered.

                                 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no

                   offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30168 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
                                                       2/2




                     further submitted that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the

                     driver of the said vehicle and was merely a passenger in the said

                     Scorpio. Learned counsel further submits that nothing has been

                     recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The witnesses to

                     the seizure list are police personnel, and the police have not

                     complied with Section 105 of the BNSS while effecting the

                     seizure. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody

                     since 24.01.2026.

                                  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 Chief

                     Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Ballia P.S. Case

                     No. 52 of 2026.


                                                    (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.