IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.895 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2014 Thana- Kharagpur District- Munger ======================================================

Chandan Bhagat @ Laden Son of Vindeshavari Bhagat Resident of Village -

Dariyapur, P.s.- Gangta , Distt.- Munger.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Satya Narayan Prasad ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 18-02-2026 1. Heard the parties.

2. The present appeal preferred by appellant, namely, Chandan Bhagat @ Laden against judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2022 and order of sentence dated 03.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge V^th Munger in connection with Sessions Trial No. 114 of 2015, whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 26(11) of the Arms Act, in default of payment of fine, the learned trial court ordered the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Case of prosecution in brief as it appears that ASI recorded his self-statement alleging that on 26 April 2016 he received secret information that appellant was illegally manufacturing and selling firearms from his house and could be arrested if a raid was conducted. Acting on this tip-off, the informant reached the accused house at about 3:30 PM and saw a person closing the gate, who escaped despite police efforts to apprehend him. Through local choukidar Anil Mishra and Md. Akul, the person was identified as appellant. As no one agreed to act as a witness, the police entered and searched the house, recovering from the courtyard several mini gun factory instruments, including a drill machine, bhanti, half-manufactured barrel, iron chisel, reti, 25 grams of gunpowder, two iron triggers, and a gas cutter, after which a seizure list was prepared.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written information, Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2014 was lodged under under Section 25(1-A), 25(1-AA),25(1-B)c, 25(1)(11)(111)

of the Arms Act and 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act against the appellant.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether four witnesses. They are:-

6. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon following documents/exhibits in order to prove the charges:-

7. On the basis of evidences, as surfaced during the trial, the appellant/convict was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he denied all incriminatic evidences as surfaced against him during trial and claimed his complete innocence and false implication.

8. Neither any defence witness nor any document was exhibited in support of defence by appellant/convict.

9. Upon the basis of evidences as surfaced during the trial and also by taking note of the argument as advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the learned trial court convicted appellant/convict and passed order of sentence, as stated hereinabove.

10. Being aggrieved with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant/convict preferred the present appeal.

11. Hence the present appeal.

Argument on behalf of the appellant/convict:

12. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/convict that maximum seized materials during the course of raid appearing household materials and, therefore, allegation qua manufacturing of fire-arms is completely baseless against the appellant. It is submitted that during trial, PW-4 namely, Girjan Prasad and PW-5 namely, Indrajeet Singh, who are seizure list witnesse