Patna High Court
Jitendra Kumar @ Puttan Singh @ Jitendra Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, finding that the confessional statement is not admissible evidence and that the antecedents do not, on the facts, warrant denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 25(1‑a), 25(1‑B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, alleging that a co‑accused, Ravish Singh, had recovered 4,000 cartridges and, in a confessional statement to police, claimed he would supply them to the petitioner and another person. The petitioner argued that the confessional statement is inadmissible and that there is no other admissible evidence linking him to the offence, while also acknowledging four prior criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s criminal record. The High Court examined the evidentiary value of the co‑accused’s statement and the impact of the petitioner’s antecedents, and concluded that bail could be granted subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, the court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, and imposed conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023, including cancellation of bail if undisclosed antecedents are discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused made to police is admissible for the purpose of granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail in an Arms Act case.
- Whether bail can be granted despite the petitioner not having filed an anticipatory bail application earlier.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑a), 25(1‑B)a, 26, 35
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedents
- Section 482
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76668 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2025 Thana- LAUHIYANAGAR District- Begusarai
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar @ Puttan Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Singh S/O Late
Madhusudan Prasad Singh @ Madhusudan Singh R/O Village - 83 -
Hanuman Tola, Sonbarsa Raj, Ward No. - 5, P.S. Sonbarsa Raj, District -
Saharsa. .
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,
in connection with Lohiyanagar P.S. Case No. 95 of 2025, dated
17.08.2025, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 25(1-a)/ 25(1-B)a/ 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per allegation, total 4000 cartridges have been
recovered from illegal possession of co-accused-Ravish Singh
and as per confessional statement of co-accused- Ravish Singh,
he was going to supply the same to the petitioner and Manoj
Yadav.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76668 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
case. He further submits that confessional statement of co-
accused before the police against the petitioner has no
evidentiary value, because confessional statement of co-accused
before the police is not admissible and hence, it cannot be
proved in the trial. Hence, the material upon which the
petitioner has been implicated is not legal and besides this
illegal material, there is no any admissible evidence against this
petitioner.
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has four criminal antecedents.
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named,
to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76668 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
learned concerned Court Below, in connection with Lohiyanagar
P.S. Case No. 95 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the
following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents other than
the disclosed one, learned court below shall cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied
that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite
his knowledge of the same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.