Dismissed¶22

Tanikan Bind @ Tanik Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Feb 2026CR. MISC./78112/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 78112 of 2025, order dated 23-02-2026 by Hon'ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava: bail application of Tanikan Bind @ Tanik Prasad in Chiksaura P.S. Case No. 109 of 2025 (Nalanda) under Sections 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(1), 26(1) and 26(2) of the Arms Act (illegal gun factory / manufacture of illegal firearms) rejected on grounds of nature of recovery and antecedent; custody since 28.07.2025; charges framed; advocates Sanjay Kumar Sinha for petitioner and Jagdhar Prasad, APP for the State.

What did the court decide?

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the nature of the recovery coupled with the petitioner's antecedent, the Court was not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. ¶22

Tanikan Bind @ Tanik Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78112 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2025 Thana- CHIKSAUR District- Nalanda

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Tanikan Bind @ Tanik Prasad S/O Late Teju Bind Resident of VillageBairiganj, P.S- Chiksaura, Distt.- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP

¶11

======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶13

6 23-02-2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶15

APP for the State.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(1), 26(1) and 26(2) of the Arms Act.

¶17

As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is of running and operating an illegal gun factory and manufacturing of illegal firearms.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been made an accused in this case on account of recovery made from his house, which was not done in the presence of independent witness. The petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2025 and charges have been framed.

¶19

Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner was running an illegal gun factory in his house and there is recovery of several

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78112 of 2025(6) dt.23-02-2026 2/2

¶21

incriminating articles and he has an antecedent of similar nature.

¶22

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and considering the nature of the recovery, coupled with his antecedent, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Chiksaura P.S. Case No.109 of 2025.

¶23

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶24

anand/- U T

Tanikan Bind @ Tanik Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanikan Bind @ Tanik Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mantosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Gond @ Anil Gond Vs The State of Bihar

Niranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Farzana Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar