Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Guddu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Guddu Kumar was arrested in connection with an alleged violation of the Arms Act, specifically sections 25(1‑B)(A), 26 and 35, for allegedly keeping a country‑made pistol and live cartridges in the house of Vakil Rai. The prosecution claimed the weapons were recovered from the premises, but not from the petitioner’s personal possession, and there were no independent witnesses to the seizure. The petitioner, a young student with no prior criminal record, applied for bail, arguing that the mandatory provisions for recovery and seizure were not complied with. The State opposed bail, relying on the FIR allegations. The Court, after considering that the recovery was not from the petitioner’s personal possession and noting his lack of antecedents, ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties. The bail order was directed to be complied with by the appropriate court in Vaishali.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 25(1‑B)(A), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
  • Whether the recovery of the weapon from the premises, without personal possession or independent witnesses, violates mandatory provisions and warrants denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Arms Act
  • illegal possession
  • recovery and seizure
  • personal possession
  • criminal procedure
  • young offender

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36365 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2026 Thana- JURAWANPUR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Guddu Kumar Son of Bindeshwar Rai @ Baleshwar Rai Resident of Village -
                 Rampur Karari Barari, P.S.- Jurawanpur, District - Vaishali.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Kahkashan Alam, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh No.1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-06-2026                    Heard Ms. Khakashan Alam, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh No.1, learned APP for

                   the State.

                                   2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for

                   the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(A), 26, 35 of

                   the Arms Act.

                                   3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation

                   against the petitioner is that he was apprehended from the

                   house of Vakil Rai where he along with other co-accused had

                   kept a country made pistol and two live cartridges.

                                   4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it

                   would be evident from the First Information Report itself that

                   the recovery of the country made pistol and the cartridges was

                   made from the premises of one Vakil Rai and an allegation has
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36365 of 2026(2) dt.10-06-2026
                                                        2/2




                      been made upon this petitioner that he alongwith another co-

                      accused had kept the said pistol in the house of Vakil Rai, since

                      there was a land dispute. It has been argued that there is no

                      recovery from the personal or conscious possession and there is

                      no independent witness to the search and seizure, as such, the

                      mandatory provisions have been violated. Further, the

                      petitioner is a young boy and also a student having no criminal

                      antecedent and he is in custody since 08.04.2026.

                                      5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of

                      bail on the basis of allegations made in the First Information

                      Report.

                                     6. Taking into consideration the facts and

                      circumstances and considering the fact that the recovery is not

                      from the personal possession of the petitioner, let the above

                      named petitioner, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of

                      Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the

                      like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM-14,

                      Vaishali at Hajipur/concerned Court below in connection with

                      Jurawanpur P.S. Case No. 78 of 2026.



                                                (Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
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.