Patna High Court

Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted because of the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s extensive criminal antecedents, and his prolonged pre‑trial detention.

Summary

The petitioner, Sujeet Kumar, was arrested in September 2024 for alleged possession of a loaded pistol, an offence under Sections 25(1‑B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. He applied for pre‑arrest bail after being in custody for more than a year and having ten prior criminal cases, three of which relate to the Arms Act. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Supreme Court in Md. Wazid v. State of UP (2023 INSC 683) had quashed an FIR despite the appellant’s multiple pending cases, and thus bail should be granted. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges, the petitioner’s extensive criminal record, and the fact that the trial was at an early stage. The bench, after considering the FIR allegations and the petitioner’s antecedents, concluded that bail could not be granted and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail under the Arms Act given his prolonged custody and multiple prior convictions.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1‑B)A, 26, 35

Subjects

bail
Arms Act
pre‑arrest bail
criminal antecedents
custody
high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87485 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-338 Year-2024 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL District-
                                                        Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Kumar S/o Raj Kumar Mahto R/o Village -
                 Mahmadpur, Mahamadpur, P.S - Town, District - Begusarai

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :

                 For the Petitioner/s      :     Mr.Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate

                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP

                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   13-02-2026                          Heard Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, learned counsel

                   appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1,

                   learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 338 of 2024 registered for the

                   offence(s) punishable under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26, 35 of the

                   Arms Act.

                                 3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, one loaded

                   country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the

                   petitioner.

                                 4. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf

                   of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s bail application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87485 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
                                            2/3




          was rejected vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.

          No.28374 of 2025 by this Court. He further submitted that the

          petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2024, i.e. more than one year

          and he has ten criminal antecedents. Learned counsel referring

          to the order passed by the Apex Court in case of Md. Wazid Vs.

          State of UP & Ors. reported in 2023 INSC 683 , submitted that

          in the said case, the Apex Court has quashed the FIR of the said

          appellant despite having several previous criminal cases

          pending against the appellant.

                       5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail and submitted that

          in the case of Md. Wazid (Supra) the appellant of the said case

          was in custody for more than in the present case. He submitted

          that though the trial is at the initial stage, the petitioner don’t

          deserve to be released on bail.

                       6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf

          of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation made in the

          FIR and also the fact that the petitioner has ten criminal

          antecedents, out of which, three are under Arms Act and he has

          remained in custody only for a period of more than one year, I

          am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

                       7. Accordingly, the present application stands
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87485 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                     dismissed.



                                               (Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…