The court determined that anticipatory bail was not warranted due to the severity of the allegations against the petitioner, including possession of firearms and explosives without valid licenses.

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section

25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.736 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, without possessing a valid licence, was found in possession of a country-made gun along with explosive substances, namely, 400 grams of sulphur, 2 kilograms of iron phosphorus, 2 kilograms of salt and 300 grams of carbon. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a country-made gun along with explosive substances.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and having regard to the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.