Patna High Court
Ranjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was denied as the court found the offences grave and the sanction under the Arms Act pending.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, was arrested on 27‑12‑2024 in connection with a violent incident involving extortion and the discharge of firearms, and is charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act. He applied for regular bail for the second time, arguing that charges under the Arms Act could not be framed without a sanction order. The trial court had earlier rejected his bail application, noting the seriousness of the offences, the presence of a loaded pistol, and the extortion motive. On review, the High Court upheld the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the gravity of the alleged crimes and the pending need for a sanction under the Arms Act. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the District Magistrate was directed to decide on the sanction within a month.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act
- Whether the absence of a sanction order under the Arms Act precludes framing of charges and affects bail eligibility
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 308(5), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- sanction
- serious offences
- extortion
- firearms
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78008 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-435 Year-2024 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Son of Late Ajit Kumar @ Ajeet Kumar Resident of Draves
Lane @ Drivers Lane, Near Masjid, P.O. and P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pushpendra Priyedarshi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case
No. 435 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 109, 308(5), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 35 of the
Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 14.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 22717 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner, who is in custody
since 27.12.2024, seeks regular bail in
connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 435 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78008 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
2024 registered for the offence under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 109, 308(5), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections
25(1-B)a, 26, 27 35 of the Arms Act.the Indian
Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
informant of the case had purchased a land in
Danapur and was threatened by one Arshad
Hussain for extortion of money of Rs.5 crore. On
the date of occurrence, the informant and his
friend after construction of the boundary wall
were sitting on the plot when one Saddam
Hussain along with others came there and started
firing. When the police reached the place of
occurrence, one criminal fled away and this
petitioner along with others was caught on the
spot.
4. From the petitioner, one loaded
country made pistol has been recovered and from
other criminals, pistols, etc.,have been recovered.
5. The petitioner is in custody since
27.12.2024 and claims clean antecedent.
6. Considering the demand of extortion
and the firing done by the petitioner and others, I
am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is hereby rejected. The trial is
directed to be expedited.
8. The Senior Superintendent of Police,
Patna will ensure the presence of the witnesses in
the trial on all the dates so that these kinds of
criminals do not roam freely in the society.
9. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Patna through FAX for its compliance
forthwith.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 27.1.2024 and since the charges
have not been framed for want of sanction order under the Arms
Act, he may be released on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78008 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and charges
against the petitioner, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
7. The District Magistrate, Patna is directed to take a
decision on the sanction for prosecution, of the petitioner within
one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this
order.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
District Magistrate, Patna forthwith through FAX or e-mail for
its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…