Patna High Court
Brahamdeo RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Brahamdeo Rai applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under the Arms Act, including illegal possession of a pistol and cartridges recovered from his house. The prosecution alleged that he forcibly ploughed disputed land at gunpoint and brandished a weapon, a video of which went viral. No counsel appeared for the petitioner, while the State was represented by Ms. Suman Kumari Singh. The court examined the FIR, seizure list, and the fact that the firearm was recovered from the petitioner’s residence. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the material evidence, the judge was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged possession and use of an illegal firearm under the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 25(ix), 26, 35
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- illegal firearm
- bail denial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87148 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Brahamdeo Rai Son of Ramjeevan Rai @ Ramjivan Ray Resident Of Village
-Bahrampur, Ps- Rustampur, Diist -Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 No-one appears for the petitioner. However, learned
counsel for the State is present.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Raghopur (Rustampur) Police Station Case No. 123
of 2025, disclosing offences under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35,
25(ix) of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information
Report, is that on 14.05.2025, during the night, the police party
got secret information that on 13.05.2025, the petitioner had
forcibly ploughed the disputed land at gunpoint and had also
brandished a weapon, a video of which is stated to have gone
viral. The police reached at the place of occurrence and
recovered one country-made pistol and three live cartridges of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87148 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/2
8MM K.F from the house of the petitioner. However, the
petitioner managed to escape and was not apprehended.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the
First Information Report and the seizure list, there is specific
allegation that the firearm was recovered from the house of the
petitioner. The video of the the petitioner brandishing the
weapon was also viral.
5. Regards being had to the submissions made by
learned counsel for the State and taking into consideration the
materials available on record and the fact that illegal firearm has
been recovered from the house of the petitioner, I am not
inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, the prayer for bail, is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…