Patna High Court
Santlal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a bail bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
Santlal Kumar was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he threatened villagers with a pistol and was involved in assault and robbery. The prosecution alleged that he brandished a pistol, which was later recovered from the informant’s house, and that he is already an accused in five other cases, three under the Excise Act, all on bail. The petitioner contended that no weapon was found in his possession, the FIR was politically motivated, and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed bail, fearing the petitioner would continue illegal activities. After reviewing the evidence, the court noted that the pistol was not recovered from the petitioner and granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents and conditions under Section 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious allegations and his prior criminal cases.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 74
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- arms act
- narcotic offences
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- political vendetta
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39412 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2026 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Santlal Kumar S/o Brahmdev Rai @ Brahmdeo Rai resident of Ward no. 13,
Village- Pokhraira, Pokhraira Silaut,P.S. Muffasil, Dist-Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Keshav Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the state.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 92 of 2026, for
allegedly having committed offence under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 303(2), 74, 329(4), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023
and 25(1-B), (a), 26 and 35 of Arms Act, 1959.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to
the effect that on the date of occurrence while he was at Yadav
chowk, all the accused persons, including the petitioner herein
came there on two motorcycle. Co-accused Rohit Mishra,
caught hold of the informant’s collar and attempted to forcibly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39412 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
take him away, after snatching his mobile phone. The accused
persons alleged that the informant used to give information to
the police with regard to sale of illegal liquor by the petitioner
and other accused persons. When the villagers assembled there,
the petitioner took out a pistol from his waist and threatened the
villagers and fled away. It has further been alleged that on the
same day at about 7:30 PM, all the accused persons reached the
house of the informant and started abusing and assaulting him.
When the wife of the informant tried to intervene, she was also
assaulted. When the family members of the informant and co-
villagers assembled there, the petitioner herein took out a pistol
and pointed it out towards the informant. The informant got hold
of the pistol and whereupon all the accused persons fled away,
however co-accused Rohit Mishra was apprehended. During
course of fleeing away, the pistol and mobile phone of the
petitioner was left behind.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He
submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner or from the house of the petitioner.
He further submits that the present FIR has been lodged due to
village politics at the local level. He further submits that no fire
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39412 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
arm was recovered or seized by the police from the house or
from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that the pistol
was seized by the police from the house of the informant
himself. He further submits that the petitioner is an accused in
five other cases, out of which three are of Excise Act and in all
the cases, he is on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the state
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner is an accused in five other cases and
therefore, if he will be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail,
there is every apprehension that he will indulge in illegal
activities in future.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after going
through the records, it appears that the allegation against the
petitioner is that he threatened the informant and other villagers
with a pistol, which is said to have been left at the place of
occurrence, while the petitioner was fleeing away. Nothing has
been recovered from the petitioner and the pistol is said to have
been recovered from the house of the informant. Considering
above, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or
surrender withing a period of six weeks, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39412 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
Learned A.C.J.M- II, Samastipur or the concerned Court in
connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 92 of 2026,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the B.N.S.S., with further condition:
(1)The learned Court concerned shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it
is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation
of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Krishnakant
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.