Patna High Court
Mukku Dom @ Arun DomversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioners subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Mukku Dom and Md Imteyaz, were arrested on 16 October 2025 in connection with FIR dated 15 October 2025 for offences under Section 313 of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, relating to the recovery of a mobile phone and a loaded pistol with live cartridges. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, that the mobile phone was recovered only from Imteyaz and the arms from a co‑accused, and that the charges were based merely on suspicion. The State opposed bail, highlighting that petitioner 1 had two other pending cases while petitioner 2 had a clean record. The Court, after considering the facts, granted bail to both petitioners on a bond of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, non‑tampering with evidence or witnesses, and verification of criminal antecedents. The bail order was directed to be implemented by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners accused under the Arms Act and B.N.S. provisions.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioners are merely speculative and thus warrant bail.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 35
- B.N.S. — s. 313
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
- mobile phone
- pistol
- Patna High Court
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4014 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-607 Year-2025 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Mukku Dom @ Arun Dom S/O Sri Virendra Dom Resident of Village-
Sabni, P.S- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran.
2. Md. Imteyaz @ Imtiyaj Miyan S/O Sri Md. Haslam @ Md. Islam Resident
of Village- Sabni, P.S- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since
16.10.2025, in connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 607 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 15.10.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 313 of B.N.S. and Section 25(1-B)a, 26,
35 of the Arms Act.
3. The case relates to recovery of one mobile phone and
loaded country made pistol with live cartridges.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in
the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4014 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not
committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the
F.I.R. that one Canvas Company mobile phone was recovered from
the possesion of petitioner no. 2, namely, Md. Imteyaz and nothing
has been recovered from the possession of petitioner no. 1, namely
Mukku Dom @ Arun Dom and arms have been recovered from co-
accused Rahul Kumar and petitioners have been made accused
merely on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that the
police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the
petitioners and the petitioners are in custody since 16.10.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and
submits that petitioner no. 1 carries two more cases other than the
present, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition in which he is
on bail in the pending matters and petitioner no. 2 having clean
antecedent..
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari in
connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 607 of 2025, subject to
the following conditions :-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4014 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
(1) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and
shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on
their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason,
their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any
stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal
antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioners. 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…