Patna High Court

Md. Simran @ RajuversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner due to the seriousness of the Arms Act offences and the intentional delay of the trial.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Simran, was arrested in October 2023 in connection with a case under the Arms Act involving large quantities of weapon‑making articles. He applied for regular bail in a trial pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge‑III, Munger. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he has clean antecedents, has been in custody for an extended period, and that only three witnesses have been examined despite a show‑cause order. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner and co‑accused have deliberately delayed the trial by filing a discharge petition, thereby obstructing justice. The court noted the seriousness of the offences, the recovered arms material, and the intentional delay caused by the discharge petition. Consequently, the court declined to grant bail, rejecting the petitioner’s regular bail application.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused in a case under Sections 25, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
Whether the alleged trial‑delaying tactics, including filing a discharge petition, justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-b)a, 26(ii), 26(iii), 35

Subjects

regular bail
Arms Act
trial delay
discharge petition
custody
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55288 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2023 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Simran @ Raju Son of Md. Samaher @ Md. Shamser @ Mohammad
                 Samsher Khan @ Shamser Khan R/O Village- Bakarpur, P.S.- Muffasil,
                 District- Munger

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s

                                                      Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                                          ... ... Opposite Party/s

                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Madhukar Anand, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, A.P.P
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

                                                 ORAL ORDER

6   09-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

                   Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2025 arising out of Muffasil (Munger)

                   P.S. Case No. 353 of 2023 lodged on 13.10.2023, for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-AA)/25(1-b)a/26(ii)

                   (iii) and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Additional

                   District & Sessions Judge-III, Munger.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   regular bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55288 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026
                                            2/3




          twice vide order dated 04.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

          23864 of 2024 & vide order dated 05.02.2025 passed in Cr.

          Misc. No. 71971 of 2024. Counsel submits that the petitioner is

          in custody since 14.10.2023, having clean antecedent. Counsel

          submits that after issuance of show cause to the S.P., Munger by

          this Court vide order dated 12.09.2025, only three witnesses

          were examined, and prior to that, not a single witness was

          examined. He further submits that the petitioner has

          unnecessarily been kept in the custody. Counsel submits that a

          fresh/current report with regard to the present stage of trial was

          called for vide order dated 12.12.2025 and according to him,

          still, three witnesses, have been examined.

                       4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner and other

          accused persons themselves have taken steps to delay the trial,

          as one of the accused has filed a discharge petition and in the

          name of discharge, the trial has been lingered.

                       5. From the record, it transpires that huge quantity of

          articles which are being used for preparation of arms, have been

          recovered from the petitioner’s possession in this case and by

          virtue of filing discharge petition, the delay in the trial has been

          caused intentionally.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55288 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026
                                                         3/3




                                    6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined

                       to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular

                       bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.



                                                                      (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.