Patna High Court
Ajeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner was implicated by co-accused statements, linked to illegal arms, and had a concealed prior criminal record.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajeet Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving alleged conspiracy to commit vehicle loot and possession of illegal arms. The prosecution’s case is based on the recovery of loaded pistols, live cartridges, and cash from three co-accused, whose confessional statements identified the petitioner as a participant who fled the scene. The petitioner argued that he was not apprehended at the spot, no direct evidence linked him to the arms, and that co-accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner’s alleged involvement, and a prior criminal record that the petitioner concealed. The court, noting the co-accused testimony, the recovered weapons, and the undisclosed antecedent, declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the allegations and co-accused testimony
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent, concealed in the bail application, affects the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 310(5), 310(6), 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 399, 401, 402
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- arms possession
- co-accused testimony
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91382 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2024 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Ajeet Kumar Son of Ram Pravesh Prasad Resident of Village - Madanpur,
Bajrabad, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District - Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.328 of 2024, registered for the
offence under Sections 310(5), 310(6), 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms.
3. As per prosecution case, on 27.11.2024 the
informant got information that in the mango orchard at Godhiya
Chaman near N.H.22 some miscreants were making plan to
commit crime of vehicle loot. On such information, the
informant along with police team reached there. On seeing the
police vehicle some persons started to flee, but with the help of
police force, three persons were apprehended and two persons
succeeded to escape away. On interrogation, the apprehended
persons disclosed their name as Ramesh Kumar, Kundan Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91382 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
and Manikant Kumar. They also disclosed the name of the
persons who escaped away as Ajit Kumar and Dharmendra
Kumar. Thereafter search of apprehended persons was made.
From the waist of apprehended accused Ramesh Kumar one
loaded country made pistol with one live cartridge and from his
pocket one live cartridge and Rs.25,000/- cash were recovered.
From the waist of accused Kundan Kumar one loaded country
made pistol with one live cartridge and one mobile from his
pocket were recovered. From the pocket of accused Manikant
Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar one live cartridge and one mobile
were recovered. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the alleged place of
occurrence and the FIR itself does not attributed any specific
overt act or recovery against the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits that only on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused the petitioner has been
implicated in this case. Further submits that the other co-
accused persons have already been granted bail by the learned
court below and the petitioner stands on an identical footing.
5. The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91382 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
6. Considering the fact that there is serious allegation
against the petitioner that he had assembled with other co-
accused persons for the purpose of committing crime, although
the petitioner was not arrested on the spot but he had fled away
after seeing the police, his name was disclosed by co-accused
persons who were arrested on the spot with illegal arms and also
considering the fact that para-52 of the case diary shows that
that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of one case ie.
Ekangar Sarai (Nalanda) P.S. Case No.12 of 2016 under Section
399, 401 and 402 of IPC and Section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of
Arms Act, which was concealed by the petitioner in the
anticipatory bail application filed before the court below, this
Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is
rejected.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U T
Checking your session…