Patna High Court
Tanikan Bind @ Tanik PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Tanikan Bind, applied for bail in a criminal case (PS Case No.109 of 2025) alleging violation of Sections 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(1), 26(1) and 26(2) of the Arms Act for allegedly operating an illegal gun factory at his residence. The prosecution contended that illegal firearms and related articles were recovered from his house and that he has a prior similar antecedent. The petitioner argued that the recovery was made without an independent witness and that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the recovery, and the petitioner’s antecedent. After considering the facts, the court found the circumstances sufficient to deny bail at this stage and rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused alleged to be running an illegal gun factory under the Arms Act, considering the nature of the recovery and prior antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(1), 26(1), 26(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- illegal firearms
- criminal procedure
- antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78112 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2025 Thana- CHIKSAUR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Tanikan Bind @ Tanik Prasad S/O Late Teju Bind Resident of Village-
Bairiganj, P.S- Chiksaura, Distt.- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
6 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(1),
26(1) and 26(2) of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation
against the petitioner is of running and operating an illegal gun
factory and manufacturing of illegal firearms.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has falsely been made an accused in this case on
account of recovery made from his house, which was not done
in the presence of independent witness. The petitioner is in
custody since 28.07.2025 and charges have been framed.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of
bail on the ground that the petitioner was running an illegal gun
factory in his house and there is recovery of several
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78112 of 2025(6) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
incriminating articles and he has an antecedent of similar
nature.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the nature of the recovery,
coupled with his antecedent, this Court is not inclined to grant
the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly,
the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in
connection with Chiksaura P.S. Case No.109 of 2025.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…