Patna High Court
Md. Rustam AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Rustam Ansari, was arrested after police raided his house and seized 32 machine tools allegedly used for manufacturing firearms and an unregistered automobile. He sought bail for offenses under Sections 25(1‑b), 25(1)(a), 25(1‑AA) and 35 of the Arms Act. The petitioner claimed the tools were for legitimate engineering work and asserted innocence, while the prosecution highlighted the seized equipment, the petitioner’s prior similar criminal antecedent, and incriminating statements from his wife and a co‑accused. The court, considering the seriousness of the alleged arms manufacturing and the petitioner’s past record, declined to grant bail. It directed the trial court to expedite the trial and clarified that its observations were only prima facie for the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the Arms Act given the nature of the alleged offenses and the presence of seized manufacturing equipment.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent and statements of co‑accused and spouse justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1)(a), 25(1-AA), 25(1-b), 35
Subjects
- Arms Act
- bail
- illegal arms manufacturing
- criminal antecedent
- seizure of tools
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34065 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-566 Year-2025 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui
======================================================
Md. Rustam Ansari Son of Md. Samsuddin Ansari @ Md. Samsuddin,
Resident of Village- Paharpur, P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 The matter was heard via video conferencing
mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Jhajha P.S. Case No. 566 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 25(1-b), 25(1)(a), 25(1-AA) and 35
of the Arms Act.
4. As per prosecution case, on receiving
information about arms and ammunition being manufactured in
the house of the petitioner, the Police party raided the house of
the petitioner and apprehended him. A search was conducted
and 32 machine tools for manufacturing fire-arms were
recovered from one room of petitioner’s house along with one
Ape Xtra Deluxe Auto which was without registration number.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34065 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The petitioner runs a shop of engineering works in
his house and the said machine/tools which have been seized by
the Police are used for genuine work and are not used for illegal
works or for manufacturing incriminating articles. Learned
counsel lastly submits that petitioner has one criminal
antecedent and he is in custody since 12.02.2026 in the present
case, although he is in jail since 29.11.2025 in connection with
Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 323 of 2025.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that various machine tools for
manufacturing fire-arms were recovered from the house of the
petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has one criminal
antecedent of similar nature. In paragraph no. 8 of the case
diary, the wife of the petitioner has herself stated that in the
night her husband with the help of a worker used to make
something illegal in a room. The co-accused Rafiq also revealed
that both of them were jointly engaged in the illegal
manufacturing of arms.
7. Considering the nature of allegation and also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34065 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/3
considering the previous criminal antecedent of the petitioner
which is of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
stands rejected.
9. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite and
conclude the trial at the earliest.
10. It is made clear that any observation made
herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose
of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observation
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.