Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87485 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-338 Year-2024 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai

====================================================== Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Kumar S/o Raj Kumar Mahto R/o Village - Mahmadpur, Mahamadpur, P.S - Town, District - Begusarai

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶5

3 13-02-2026

¶6

Heard Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, learned counsel

¶7

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1, learned APP for the State.

¶8

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 338 of 2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

¶9

As per the allegation made in the FIR, one loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

¶10

At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s bail application

¶11

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87485 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026 2/3

¶12

was rejected vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.28374 of 2025 by this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2024, i.e. more than one year and he has ten criminal antecedents. Learned counsel referring to the order passed by the Apex Court in case of Md. Wazid Vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in 2023 INSC 683 , submitted that in the said case, the Apex Court has quashed the FIR of the said appellant despite having several previous criminal cases pending against the appellant.

¶13

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail and submitted that in the case of Md. Wazid (Supra) the appellant of the said case was in custody for more than in the present case. He submitted that though the trial is at the initial stage, the petitioner don’t deserve to be released on bail.

¶14

Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation made in the FIR and also the fact that the petitioner has ten criminal antecedents, out of which, three are under Arms Act and he has remained in custody only for a period of more than one year, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the present application stands

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87485 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026 3/3

¶17

dismissed.

¶18

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶19

Ashishsingh/-

¶20

U T

Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Priyadarshi Resort and Hotel Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar

Aniket Kumar alias Aneeket Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Lakhan Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Madan Kumar @ Mintu Vs The State of Bihar

Shubham Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Sah @ Manoj Vs The State of Bihar