SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3082

PATNA HIGH COURT
Jitendra Kumar, J
Nagendra Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.575 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ravindra Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin

The court granted bail after considering the lack of criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations against the petitioner.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the bail petition of the petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act. The petitioner claims innocence, stating the allegations are based solely on suspicion. The court allowed the petition, directing bail upon compliance with specified conditions. The petitioners' lack of prior applications for bail and no criminal antecedents were noted. The court emphasized conditions under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S 2023 regarding bail cancellation under certain circumstances.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 267 of 2015 dated 25.06.2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467 , 468, 471, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act .

3. As per allegation, the petitioner has supplied illegal arms to co-accused Ranjeet Kumar who works as security guard in Geetanjali Jewellers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that only allegation against the petitioner is that he has supplied the illegal arms to co-accused Ranjeet Kumar. However, such allegation is based only on suspicion and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. The petitioner is farmer and he is busy in farming work.

5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned court below in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 267 of 2015 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S 2023 , and on the following conditions:

below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the same.

below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Jitendra Kumar, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top