Shyam Babu Gop @ Shyam Babu Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10509 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2025 Thana- PATNA CITY CHOWK District- Patna ====================================================== Shyam Babu Gop @ Shyam Babu Ray S/o Late Lal Mohan Ray @ Late Lal Mohan Gop Resident of - Kaimashikoh, Kauakhoh, P.S - Chowk, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Arya, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chowk P.S. Case No. 388/2025 lodged on 25.09.2025, for the offences punishable under sections 25(1b)a/26/27/29/30 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against ten named accused persons, including the present petitioner, on the basis of recovery of arms from the possession of the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that no arm has been recovered from the possession of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10509 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 2/3 the petitioner and his name has surfaced in the present case only on the basis of the disclosure made by an apprehended coaccused. It is submitted that the apprehended accused persons disclosed before the police that they are members of the Patna Bouncer Security Company and that they had gone to receive the petitioner from Beur Jail and, after dropping him at his residence, they were returning when they were apprehended by the police. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and he has no concern with the recovered arms and mobile phones. Learned counsel also submits that though the petitioner is stated to be an accused in sixteen other criminal cases, he has already been acquitted in six cases and in the remaining cases he has been granted bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the entire modus operandi has been explained in the F.I.R. He further submits that the grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner may constitute a ground for regular bail, but the present case is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with the aforementioned case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10509 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 3/3 pending before the learned ACJM-VI, Patna City, Patna, is hereby rejected.
7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Trial Court within six weeks from today, the Trial Court is directed to pass an order on his surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being prejudiced by the fact that the petitioner's anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T