Patna High Court
Ajay Das @ Ajay Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
Bail was denied because the seriousness of the offences, the recovery of arms from the petitioner’s house, and his prior criminal antecedents warranted continued custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Das, was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act after illegal arms and ammunition were recovered from his residence. The prosecution alleges that the arms were purchased by co‑accused from the petitioner, who is alleged to be involved in illegal arms dealing. The petitioner contended that the recovery was made from a jointly owned house, that the search and seizure procedures were not properly followed, and that he was falsely implicated. He also highlighted that he has been in custody since 17 July 2025 and that he has five prior criminal records, one of which relates to a similar offence. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s antecedents and the danger posed by his alleged activities. The Court, considering the seriousness of the offences, the recovery of unfinished arms from the petitioner’s house, and the prior convictions, refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial within one year, after which the petitioner may renew his bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to a person charged under the Arms Act when illegal arms have been recovered from his residence.
- Whether the alleged procedural irregularities in the search and seizure affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents, including a similar offence, justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- illegal arms
- criminal antecedents
- search and seizure
- joint property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78228 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2025 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
Ajay Das @ Ajay Kumar Das, S/o Suresh Das, R/o - Nariyar, P.S - Saharsa
Sadar, Dsitrict - Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Saur
Bazar P.S. Case No. 169 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, arms were recovered from
illegal possession of two co-accused who stated to the Police
that they had purchased the recovered illegal arms from the
petitioner who deals in illegal arms and ammunition. On raid at
the house of the petitioner, illegal arms and ammunition
including one unfinished arms were recovered from his house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that charge has already been framed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78228 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
this case. He also submits that the house from where the
recovery has been made is joint property of his family. He also
submits that it is recovered not from the personal possession of
the petitioner but from the house of the petitioner and procedure
of search and seizure has not been followed at the time of the
alleged recovery of arms and ammunition.
5. He further submits that the petitioner has been
languishing in jail since 17.07.2025.
6. It has also been stated in paragraph No. 3 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has five criminal antecedents.
7. 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.
8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that the
petitioner has five criminal antecedents and one of them is
similar nature which shows that the petitioner is involved in
manufacturing of illegal arms and sell them to the people and it
is very dangerous to the people.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts particularly the
criminal antecedents including one of similar nature and
recovery of illegal arms including unfinished arms from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78228 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
house of the petitioner, I am not persuaded to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
stands rejected.
11. However, learned Trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year, failing
which, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for
bail.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-
U T
Checking your session…