Patna High Court
Vikram KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikram Kumar, applied for bail in a case under Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that a co‑accused named him, leading to a search of his house where only a mobile phone was seized, containing a video of illegal arms. The petitioner contended that nothing else was recovered, he was falsely implicated, and he had been in judicial custody since 16‑04‑2026. The State opposed bail, citing a prior criminal case against the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the Court found the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act given the seizure of a mobile phone containing a video of illegal arms and the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑b)a, 26, 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- illegal arms
- video evidence
- judicial custody
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42929 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2026 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Vikram Kumar S/o- Munna Singh R/Village- Tangaul PS-Hajipur Town
District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that co-
accused Raunit Rai @ Bulla has named this petitioner, and on
his information, the house of the petitioner was searched. It is
alleged that nothing has been recovered from the possession of
the petitioner, rather, one mobile was recovered in which there
was video of illegal arms.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42929 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/2
case. He submits that save and except the mobile, nothing has
been recovered from the possession of the petitioner which is
also apparent from the seizure list. He further submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.04.2026.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and submits that the petitioner has got criminal
antecedent of one case.
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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in connection with Hajipur Town
P.S. Case No. 351 of 2026.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.