Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Akhilesh Kumar KushwahaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court held that, given the framing of charges and the seriousness of the offences under the Arms Act, bail could not be granted and the application was dismissed.

Summary

Akhilesh Kumar Kushwaha, arrested on 30 July 2024, sought regular bail for offences under Sections 25(1‑A), 25(1‑AA), 25(1‑Ba), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. His earlier bail application was rejected, and the petitioner filed a second bail petition. The court noted that an arms factory belonging to the petitioner had been recovered and that charges had already been framed, indicating serious allegations. Considering the gravity of the offences and the fact that the trial was ongoing, the court found no ground to revisit its earlier order. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, though the petitioner was allowed to re‑apply if the trial is delayed.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted when charges under the Arms Act have been framed and the offences are of a serious nature
  • Whether the court can revisit its earlier order denying bail

Legislation cited

  • Arms Act — s. 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)a, 26, 35

Subjects

  • bail
  • Arms Act
  • regular bail
  • charges framed
  • serious offences
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73545 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-439 Year-2024 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Akhilesh Kumar Kushwaha S/o Late Rajenndra Prasad Kushwaha R/o
                 Village- Rup Rahimapur, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran at Chapra

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Narendra Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Choubey Jawahar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   11-02-2026                     Heard the parties.

                                 2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for

                   grant of regular bail in connection Marhowrah P.S. Case No.

                   439 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-A),

                   25(1-AA), 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. Earlier the bail

                   application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated

                   22.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 89238 of 2024 which reads

                   as under:-

                                                 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
                                   and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
                                               2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
                                   connection with Marhowrah P.S. Case No. 439 of 2024
                                   registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-
                                   AA), 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.
                                               3. Arms factory has been recovered which
                                   belongs to the petitioner who is jail since 30.07.2024.
                                               4. Considering the serious allegations against
                                   the petitioner, this application is dismissed.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73545 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                          2/2




                                     3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

                        petitioner is in custody since 30.07.2024 and charges have been

                        framed.

                                     4. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact

                        that charges have been framed, this Court finds no ground to

                        review its earlier order.

                                     5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again

                        with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer of bail if the

                        trial is delayed.



                                                   (Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.