Kundan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 18-12-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶13

APP for the State and perused the case diary.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 518 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 317(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶15

The prosecution case, in short, is that there is recovery of two country made pistol, two live cartridges, seven empty cartridges and 22.650 liters liquor was recovered from the room of the petitioner and he was arrested on spot.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81444 of 2025(3) dt.18-12-2025 2/3

¶18

present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of arms. The petitioner is in custody since 07.09.2025 and has got one criminal antecedent. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶19

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is direct and specific allegation against him of possessing country made pistol and other articles from his room. It is further submitted that the informant in his re-statement at paragraph no. 3 of case diary and other witnesses at paragraph nos. 18 and 19 have supported the prosecution case. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶21

The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81444 of 2025(3) dt.18-12-2025 3/3

¶23

expedite the Trial. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production, the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.

¶24

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶25

Rajorshi/-

¶26

U T

Kundan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Madhu Yadav @ Madho Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar Shrma @ Dhillo @ Dhillo Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Jay Prakash Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Halwai Vs The State of Bihar

Himanshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar