Patna High Court
Shahnawaz Alam @ AryanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted because no material directly connects the petitioner to the alleged arms offence and he has a clean antecedent, allowing bail under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Shahnawaz Alam, sought anticipatory bail in a case where he was implicated in an alleged arms offence under Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution alleged that a co‑accused, Md. Ahsan, was found with a pistol and cartridges, and that the petitioner’s name appeared only in Ahsan’s confessional statement. The petitioner argued that no weapon or ammunition was recovered from his possession, he has no criminal antecedent, and the co‑accused’s confession alone is insufficient evidence. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner’s name had surfaced during investigation. The Court held that, in the absence of any material directly linking the petitioner to the offence and considering his clean record, anticipatory bail could be granted subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the only link is a co‑accused’s confession
- Whether the lack of recovered arms from the petitioner’s possession and his clean antecedent justify bail under Section 482 CrPC
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- false implication
- co‑accused confession
- clean antecedent
- Section 482 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9559 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-693 Year-2025 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
Shahnawaz Alam @ Aryan S/o- Mukhtar Alam Resident of- Raza Manzil
Bhanwar Pokhar, Jamun Gali, P.S- Pirbahore District-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shadab Akhter, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 693 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)
(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. As per prosecution case, on 03.10.2025 during law
and order duty at Rajendra Nagar Gumti for immersion
procession, three persons riding on a scooty were seen, out of
whom one was allegedly waving a pistol in the air. On seeing
the police party, they tried to flee away and during the course of
escaping, all three fell down near Makhaniya Kuan turning. Two
persons managed to escape, whereas one person namely Md.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9559 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
Ahsan @ Guddu was apprehended on the spot and from his
possession one country-made pistol, six live cartridges and one
blue coloured mobile phone containing two SIMs bearing Airtel
SIM No. 8804409308 and Jio SIM No. 7004532901 were
recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged
in the F.I.R. and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He
further submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Learned
counsel further submits that no firearm, ammunition or any
incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that the name of the
petitioner has transpired only on the basis of the confessional
statement of the co-accused Md. Ahsan, which has no
evidentiary value in the eyes of law and except such disclosure
there is nothing on record to connect the present petitioner with
the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel orally submits that the
petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the materials
recovered from the possession of the co-accused including the
blue coloured mobile phone containing Airtel SIM No.
8804409308 and Jio SIM No. 7004532901 and the petitiner has
also no connection with the co-accused in any manner. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9559 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated merely
on suspicion and except the disclosure of the co-accused there is
no independent material available on record against him.
Learned counsel orally submits that petitioner will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
no offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the
petitioner. Apart from that petitioner bears no criminal
antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submits that during the course of investigation his name has
surfaced and hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession
of the petitioner, keeping in view clean antecedent of petitioner,
argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into
consideration the material available on record, the petitioner
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9559 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class XIV, Patna in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case
No. 693 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that if the investigating
Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial
court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite giving
assurance to this Court are not co-operating in the investigation,
in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel
the bail bonds of the petitioner.
9. It is clarified that any observation made by this
court while considering the bail application of the petitioner
shall have no bearing over the merits of the case.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Nilmani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.