Patna High Court

Vishwa Nath SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: RAJIV ROY

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the application.

Summary

Vishwa Nath Sharma applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Sections 25(1‑A), 25(1‑B)(a), 26, 29 and 35 of the Arms Act alleging his involvement in illegal arms manufacturing. The prosecution’s case was based on a tip‑off and the recovery of weapon‑making materials from a bag seized from the petitioner’s son, Sanjay Sharma, who identified his father as involved. The petitioner contended that the recovered items were not in his possession and that his brother, also arrested, was unrelated. The State argued that the seizure and the son’s statement established a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court, after considering the submissions, concluded that the petitioner’s claim did not merit anticipatory bail and rejected the application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act based on the material recovered and the son’s identification.
Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement, as inferred from the son’s statements and seized items, suffices to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-A), 25(1-B)(a), 26, 29, 35

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Arms Act
illegal arms manufacturing
bail denial
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9904 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2025 Thana- BHITAHA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Vishwa Nath Sharma S/o Rakasha Sharma Resident of Village - Rupahi Tarn,
                 P.S - Bhitaha, District - West Champaran
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Prithvi Nath Mishra, Advocate
                 For the State            :       Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-02-2026                     Heard Prithvi Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

                                 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Bhitaha P.S. Case No. 157 of 2025 registered for

                   the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)(a), 26,

                   29 and 35 of the Arms Act, lodged on 26.10.2025 by the

                   informant Abhilash Kumar.

                                 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   that upon secret information that Bhual Sharma has been

                   apprehended with illegal arms and on his revelation that he

                   alongwith        his   brother,     Vishwa      Nath      Sharma       secretely

                   manufactured country made weapons, a raid was made. Two

                   persons tried to escape alongwith the bag in their respective

                   hands, one managed to escape, other was caught hold of. He was

                   Sanjay Sharma, son of this petitioner and gave the name of the

                   person who escaped as his father, the petitioner herein. Upon the

                   search of the bag, materials relating to manufacturing of gun
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9904 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      including cartridges were recovered. The son informed that his

                      father (petitioner herein) and uncle are indulged in manufacturing

                      illegal arms. This led to the F.I.R..

                                   4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                      arrested persons are his brother and son. His brother reside

                      separately and has nothing to do with the petitioner. Further, the

                      recovery is from his son not from his conscious possession.

                                   5. Learned APP Mr. Bharat Bhushan, on the other

                      hand opposes the prayer submitting that not only Bhual Sharma

                      was apprehended alongwith arms; upon reaching the petitioner’s

                      house, two persons tried to escape alongwith bags in their

                      respective hands. One escaped while the son who was

                      apprehended gave the name of this petitioner. Further, from the

                      bag of the son, number of incriminating materials relating to

                      manufacturing of arms including pistols recovered/seized.

                                   6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also

                      the role of the petitioner that has come by none else than by his

                      son, in that background, it would be appropriate that he seek bail.

                                   7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.



                                                     (Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…