Raj Kapoor @ Raj Kumar @ Aman @ Karma Misthi @ Karma Mistry v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3401 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2025 Thana- AZIMABAD District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Raj Kapoor @ Raj Kumar @ Aman @ Karma Misthi @ Karma Mistry Son of Kashinath Singh Resident of Village - Kamariya (Kamaria), P.S.- Azimabad, District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 111 of the B.N.S. and Section 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on secret information, a raid was conducted at the house of the accused persons, resulting in the recovery of five pistols and 100 cartridges.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made an accused in the present case only on the ground that he has criminal antecedents. Further, there is no independent witness to the seizure list and there is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3401 of 2026(3) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 no substantive material to attract the offence of Section 111 of the B.N.S.. The petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that 5 firearms along with 100 cartridges have been recovered from the house of the petitioner and he has five criminal antecedents and the stage of the case is only till the submission of charge-sheet.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and considering the quantity of seizure made from the house of the petitioner, coupled with his criminal antecedents and since the offence relates to organized crime, 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 Azimabad P.S. Case No.72 of 2025.

7. However, if substantial progress is not made in the case within reasonable frame of time, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) anand/- U T