Patna High Court

Prince Kumar @ Pince KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Prince Kumar applied for anticipatory bail after the police alleged his involvement in an offence under Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The informant claimed that on 10 August 2025 two suspects were seen near the Buddha Colony police station; one fled throwing a country‑made pistol and a mobile phone, while another suspect, Shivam, was apprehended and allegedly identified the petitioner. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested at the scene, nothing was recovered from him, and that the claim of throwing a pistol and mobile was implausible; he also contended that Shivam’s confessional statement lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner’s prior case and asserting that the investigation was ongoing. The High Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petitioner's application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act given the alleged facts and his prior antecedent.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Arms Act
Section 25
Section 26
Section 35
police investigation
confessional statement
evidentiary value
prior criminal antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87823 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2025 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Prince Kumar @ Pince Kumar S/o Satyendra Kumar @ Satendra Kumar R/o
                 Village - Rajendra Ghat, P.S - Buddha Colony, District - Patna
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   22-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35

                   of the Arms Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that

                   on 10.08.2025 at 10:55 a.m., two suspects were seen near the

                   police station, as such, police stopped them for enquiry, when one

                   accused fled throwing his country made pistol and mobile while

                   Shivam was apprehended who disclosed the name of the petitioner

                   who fled.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the place of occurrence, as such,

                   nothing was recovered from his possession. It is further submitted
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87823 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
                                                           2/2




                         that as far as allegation of throwing country made pistol and

                         mobile is concerned, the same appears to be unbelievable for the

                         reason that as to why the petitioner would have thrown his mobile

                         along with the country made pistol. It is also submitted that name

                         of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Shivam

                         in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.

                                      5.   Learned APP opposes                the   anticipatory   bail

                         application and submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case

                         and there appears absolutely no reason for the police to falsely

                         implicate the petitioner rather the apprehended accused Shivam

                         disclosed the name of the petitioner who fled after throwing the

                         country made pistol. It is also submitted that investigation in the

                         case is continuing.

                                      6. Considering the submissions made by learned APP

                         for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of

                         anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant

                         of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in

                         connection with Buddha Colony P.S. Case No.335 of 2025,

                         pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-XIVth, Patna.


                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Sanjay/-

U          T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…