Patna High Court
Amitabh Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the recovery of arms at the petitioner’s instance and the confessional statement against him warranted dismissal of the bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Amitabh Kumar Sharma, applied for regular bail in a case involving alleged possession of arms and several offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that a police raid at the residence of co‑accused Pankaj Kumar recovered a carbine, a country‑made pistol and 35 cartridges, and that the petitioner’s name appeared in a confessional statement of the co‑accused. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the main accused had already been granted bail and that no incriminating articles were found in his possession. The State opposed bail on the basis of the confessional statement and the recovery made at the petitioner’s instance. The Court, noting the recovery linked to the petitioner and the confessional statement, declined to grant bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the recovery of arms from a co‑accused’s residence.
- Whether the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in a co‑accused’s confessional statement justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1), 25(1)(1-AA), 25(1-B)a, 25(1-B)(c), 26, 28, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 111(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- arms possession
- confessional statement
- police raid
- criminal antecedents
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88139 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- PALANWA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Amitabh Kumar Sharma S/O Late Baidyanath Sharma R/O Village-
Vishunpura, Ward No.12, P.S.- Parsa, Dist.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayaya, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Palanwa P.S. Case No. 63/2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 111(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2)
and 61(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-B)a, 25(1)(1-AA), 25(1)
(1-B)(c), 26, 28 and 35 of Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, police raided the house
of one Pankaj Kumar and recovered a large cache of arms along
with other incriminating articles.
4. The petitioner was arrested from Sasaram and
brought to the house of Pankaj Kumar on the statement of the
petitioner one carbine, one country-made pistol, 35 cartridges
were recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88139 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
2/2
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case by police and
the main accused Pankaj Kumar from whom house the recovery
has been made at the instance of the petitioner has been granted
bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
18.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 77561/2025. No
incriminating articles has been recovered from his possession.
Learned counsel further submits that he has one criminal
antecedents in which he is on bail and he is in custody since
19.04.2025. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the case/
trial.
6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for regular bail of the petitioner on the ground that the name of
the petitioner has come in the confessional statement of the co-
accused.
7. Considering the recovery made from the house of
one Pankaj Kumar at the instance of the petitioner, this Court is
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.