Patna High Court
Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner’s involvement in illegal arms possession and prior criminal record justified rejection of the bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 25(1‑B)a and 26 of the Arms Act, alleging that illegal foreign‑made pistols and ammunition were recovered from his house. The prosecution contended that the weapons were indeed seized from his residence and that he has a prior criminal record. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting that he was falsely implicated due to village politics. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the recovery of illegal arms and the petitioner’s antecedent. The Court, after considering the recovery of weapons and the criminal antecedent, rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioner’s request for bail was denied.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of illegal arms recovery and prior criminal antecedent?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑B)a, 26
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- illegal weapons
- criminal antecedent
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6142 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2025 Thana- DHARHARA District- Munger
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Son of Binod Yadav Resident of Village- Badi, Govindpur,
P.S.- Dharhra, District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand
Pandit, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a
and 26 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, one illegal country made
pistol and ammunition were recovered from the house of this
petitioner.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case due to village politics.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6142 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/2
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
and illegal arm and ammunition were recovered from the house
of this petitioner. Petitioner has got one criminal antecedent.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, fact that illegal arm and ammunition were recovered from
house of this petitioner and criminal antecedent of the petitioner,
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is
rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…