Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Lawkush Kumar @ Lawkush YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding a prima facie case against the petitioner under the Arms Act.

Summary

The petitioner, Lawkush Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 25(1‑b)(a), 26, 35 and 29 of the Arms Act for allegedly concealing illegal firearms in his family house. The FIR arose from a police raid prompted by a tip that his relative, Hridaya Yadav, was hiding weapons, during which a pistol and other arms were recovered and a photograph circulating on Facebook was said to show the petitioner with a rifle. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated because of his familial link, that no weapon was found in his possession, and that the photograph was fabricated, also emphasizing his clean record. The State contended that the FIR and the viral photograph provided a specific prima facie allegation against him, justifying denial of bail. After reviewing the materials, the court held that a prima facie case existed, the risk to public safety warranted denial of anticipatory bail, and consequently dismissed the petitioner's application.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a prima facie case under the Arms Act is established.
  • Whether identification of the accused through a social‑media photograph suffices to sustain the charge.
  • Whether the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal record and claim of no direct possession of arms affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Arms Act
  • illegal firearms
  • social media identification
  • prima facie case
  • public safety

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9297 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-348 Year-2025 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Lawkush Kumar @ Lawkush Yadav S/o Ramjee Yadav Resident of village -
                 Binwaliya, P.S- Ramgarhwa, Distt.- East Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Abhishek Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   26-02-2026                  1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,

                   arises out of Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 348 of 2025, disclosing

                   offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26, 35 and 29 of

                   the Arms Act.

                                3. That the prosecution case, as per in the First

                   Information Report, is that on 07.09.2025 the informant

                   received secret information that co-accused Hridaya Yadav of

                   Village Binwalia had concealed illegal firearms in his house,

                   which could allegedly be used during the forthcoming Assembly

                   elections or in some major incident. Acting upon the said

                   information, the police party proceeded to Village Binwalia and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9297 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
                                            2/4




          surrounded the house of the said co-accused. On seeing the

          police personnel, co-accused Hridaya Yadav fled from the place

          of occurrence, while Lalmunni Devi was apprehended when she

          attempted to escape. During search of the premises, the police

          have recovered one country-made pistol with magazine without

          cartridges, two additional magazines without cartridges, one 12

          bore country-made pistol and one 12 bore single barrel gun from

          inside the house. During interrogation, Lalmunni Devi allegedly

          identified a photograph circulating on Facebook as that of her

          son, the present petitioner, namely Lavkush Yadav, and further

          stated that the 12 bore barrel gun recovered from the "Machan"

          (scaffolding) had been concealed by him. Thereafter, all the

          recovered arms were seized and a seizure list was prepared

          accordingly.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated merely

          because he happens to be the nephew of co-accused Hridya

          Yadav. He next submits that nothing has been recovered from

          the conscious possession of the petitioner and the house in

          question is a joint family property where other family members

          also reside. He next submits that the allegation regarding the

          photograph with a rifle being uploaded on Facebook is false and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9297 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
                                            3/4




          manipulated and the said fake photograph was uploaded by

          someone else. He further submits that the petitioner is having no

          criminal antecedent.

                       5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State

          vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits

          that prima facie there is specific allegation against the petitioner,

          which would be evident from the viral photograph and FIR

          itself.

                       6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

          have gone through the materials available on record, including

          the impugned order.

                       7. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that

          the learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, after

          taking note of paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 42 of the case diary and

          considering the nature and gravity of the allegations against the

          petitioner, rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.

                       8. Further, from the FIR it transpires that the

          petitioner was identified in the viral photograph by his mother,

          who was apprehended during the course of the raid, and it has

          been stated by his mother that the firearm recovered from the

          Machan was concealed by the petitioner. Possession of illegal

          arms is dangerous and illegal. It poses a serious risk to
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9297 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
                                                       4/4




                     public safety. There appears to be prima facie case against the

                     petitioner, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner

                     privilege of anticipatory bail.

                                  9. This application is, accordingly, dismissed



                                              (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.