Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Faisal Ansari @ Faisal @ Md. FaisalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Faisal Ansari, was implicated in a case involving illegal manufacture of arms under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and several provisions of the Arms Act. Police raided the house of Md. Nasir Ansari based on a tip, seizing weapons, a motorcycle registered in the petitioner’s name, and machinery. An accused person in police custody gave a confessional statement naming the petitioner, which the petitioner argued was unreliable and that no arms were found on his motorcycle. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending lack of evidentiary connection. The State opposed, emphasizing the seizure of the motorcycle and the ongoing investigation, and feared the petitioner might tamper with evidence. The High Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant anticipatory bail, concluding that the circumstances warranted continued custody.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner despite the confessional statement and seizure of a vehicle registered in his name
  • Whether the confessional statement of an accused in police custody has evidentiary value for granting bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • arms seizure
  • confessional statement
  • police investigation
  • criminal procedure
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • Arms Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40733 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2026 Thana- Madhusudanpur District- Bhagalpur
                 ======================================================
                 Faisal Ansari @ Faisal @ Md. Faisal S/O Md. Samim @ Md. Samiullah
                 Resident of Mohalla- Hakim Shah Lane Champanagar, P.S.- Nathnagar,
                 District- Bhagalpur.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Md Rashid Alam
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Dr. Indiwar Kumari
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-07-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                             2.    The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Madhusudhanpur P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026 registered for

                   the offences punishable under Section 111 of the Bharatiya

                   Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1)(a), 25(7)

                   (i), 26(2) and 35 of Arms Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges

                   that on 17-2-2026 at 11:30 am, he received an information from

                   STF, Bhagalpur and Bengal Police that illegal weapons are

                   being manufactured in the home of Md. Nasir Ansari,

                   accordingly the house of Md. Nasir Ansari was raided and 5
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40733 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
                                            2/3




          accused were apprehended and one accused fled and the

          apprehended accused disclosed the name of the petitioner and

          from the place of occurrence, motorcycle along with semi-

          manufactured pistol 20 pieces, semi-manufactured barrel 8

          pieces and machinery used for manufacturing were seized and

          the recovered motorcycle is registered in the name of the

          petitioner.

                   4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case based

          on confessional statement of apprehended accused in police

          custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is fairly

          submitted that the motorcycle seized from the place of

          occurrence belongs to the petitioner but then no arms,

          ammunition or cartridges were recovered from the motorcycle.

          It is next submitted that during the course of investigation also

          nothing has come to connect the petitioner with the offence.

                   5.     Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that no doubt the

          name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement

          of apprehended accused in police custody which does not have

          any evidentiary value, but then a motorcycle was also seized

          from the place of occurrence which was registered in the name
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40733 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
                                                          3/3




                        of the petitioner and even if nothing was recovered from the

                        said motorcycle, the mere presence of the motorcycle at the

                        place of occurrence amply demonstrates about the involvement

                        of the petitioner in the occurrence. It is further submitted that

                        house of Md. Nasir Ansari was raided based on tip given by

                        STF, Bhagalpur and Bengal Police as such it appears that it is an

                        inter-state gang which is operating. It is also submitted that

                        investigation in the case is continuing and if privilege of

                        anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or try to

                        tamper with the evidence.

                                 6.     Considering the submission made by learned APP,

                        the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory

                        bail to the petitioner.

                                 7.     Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

                        petitioner is rejected.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

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.