Patna High Court
Nandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied as the nature of the accusation and the gravity of the offence warrant refusal.
Summary
The petitioner, Nandan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being apprehended in a raid where a pistol, ganja chillam and a mobile phone were recovered from his possession. The prosecution alleged that he was caught with an illegal weapon under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and that he fled police custody. The petitioner claimed innocence, clean antecedents and alleged false implication. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s escape from custody. Considering the specific and grave nature of the accusations, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act offenses alleged
- Whether the gravity of the alleged offences and the petitioner’s escape from custody justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- illegal weapon
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 25
- Section 26
- Section 35
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7030 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2025 Thana- Ramgarh Chowk District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Nandan Kumar Son of Shankar Paswan R/o Village - Champanagar, P.S. -
Ramgarh Chowk, Dist. - Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and 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,
26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on
25.11.2025, informant, who happens to be A.S.I.-cum-S.I. of
Police, received a photo on the official mobile phone of a man
carrying illegal weapon. Upon receiving such photograph,
informant, along with other police officials, went to the house of
one Chandan Kumar in village Champanagar and on seeing the
police party, this petitioner started running away, however, he
was apprehended and on search of his room, one country made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7030 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/2
pistol, Ganja chillam and a mobile phone was recovered.
Thereafter, this petitioner escaped from the police custody and
fled away.
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 with ulterior motive. Petitioner claims clean
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that on raid, this petitioner was
apprehended and from his possession, illegal country made
pistol was recovered. However, taking advantage of the
darkness, he fled away from the police custody.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…