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) 3366

PATNA HIGH COURT
PARTHA SARTHY, J
Pramod Mandal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.717 of 2026| Sessions Trial no.988 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya
For the Respondents: Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP

Petitioners granted bail due to lack of connection to seized items and absence of criminal antecedents.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to the petitioners' plea for grant of regular bail in Nathnagar P.S. Case no.217 of 2025 for charges under the Arms Act. The court finds that the recovery of arms was from a hut not related to the petitioners. Given their lack of criminal history and time served in custody, bail is granted. The primary question addressed was whether the petitioners had a legitimate connection to the seized items. The court concluded they were falsely implicated, warranting their release on bail. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail, providing a financial bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

2 15-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Nathnagar P.S. Case no.217 of 2025 (Sessions Trial no.988 of 2025), registered under section 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-AA), 25(1-A), 26(1), 26(2) and 35 of the Arms Act .

3. As per the prosecution case, on raid being conducted it is stated that various arms and ammunition in the process of manufacture were recovered from the thatched hut.

The petitioners were taken into custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. They have no concern either with the seized articles nor with the place of its recovery. Referring to the seizure list, which is part of the F.I.R., it is stated therein that clauses 3(c) and 3(d) would show that the place of alleged recovery is the thatched hut belonging to one Ajay Mandal. The petitioners have no connection with the said Ajay Mandal. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and they are in custody since 8.7.2025. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioners in the F.I.R., the alleged place of recovery being the thatched hut of one Ajay Mandal and not of the petitioners herein, the petitioners having remained in custody for 6 months since 8.7.2025, charge-sheet having been submitted in the case and especially the petitioners not having any criminal antecedent, both the petitioner are directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Nathnagar P.S. Case no.217 of 2025 (Sessions Trial no.988 of 2025), on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur.

(Partha Sarthy, 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