Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Rohit Kumar, a student and tenant of a house in Vishnupad, Gaya, was arrested for alleged possession of a pistol, a rifle, and live cartridges, offences under Sections 25(1‑A), 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution claimed the weapons were recovered from the house, while the petitioner argued he was merely a tenant, had no possession of the arms, and that the police failed to comply with Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. during seizure. He has no prior criminal record and has been in judicial custody since 8 March 2026. The State opposed bail. After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court found the bail application credible and ordered the petitioner to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to the satisfaction of the ACJM‑VI, Gaya.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused under the Arms Act for offences under Sections 25(1‑A), 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35.
  • Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. during seizure affects the bail decision.
  • Whether the petitioner’s tenancy status and lack of possession of the seized weapons justify bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Arms Act
  • seizure procedure
  • tenancy
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41149 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2026 Thana- VISHNUPAD District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Rohit Kumar S/o Sanjay Yadav Resident of Village- Shekhbigha, P.S.-
                 Sarbahada, District- Gaya Ji

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   30-06-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-A),

                   25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from

                   the house of the petitioner, one country made pistol, one single

                   barrel rifle and two live cartridges were recovered.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

                   committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this

                   case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

                   house from where the recovery was made, does not belong to

                   the petitioner rather he is tenant in that house. He is not the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41149 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
                                                         2/2




                       owner of that house. It has further been submitted that the

                       petitioner is the resident of Village-Shekhbigha, P.S.-Sarbahda,

                       District-Gaya Ji whereas the house from where the recovery has

                       been made is in P.S.-Vishnupad. It has further been submitted

                       that nothing has been recovered from his possession. Petitioner

                       is a student. Witnesses of seizure list are police personnel.

                       Police has not complied Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. while

                       making the seizure. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent

                       and he is languishing in judicial custody since 08.03.2026.

                                    5. Learned APP appearing for the State has

                       vehemently opposed the application for bail.

                                    6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                       considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                       inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                       petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                       bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

                       of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

                       A.C.J.M.-VI, Gaya Ji in connection with Vishnupad P.S. Case

                       No. 111 of 2026.


                                              (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
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.