Pawan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11178 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2025 Thana- YADOPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Pawan Singh Son of Kamlesh Singh Resident of Village - Sihorwa, P.S.- Yadopur @ Jadopur, District - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Santosh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-03-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jadopur @ Yadopur P.S. Case No.223/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022, 317(5), 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25(1-B), (a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of five cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 1807.56 litres of liquor from a tractor along with a country made pistol and two live cartridges and one motorcycle and a bicycle were seized.

4. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11178 of 2026(3) dt.30-03-2026 2/2 conscious possession and is not the owner of the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on secret information on account of is previous antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation is of recovery of country made pistol along with two live cartridges along with liquor and the petitioner has antecedents also and the case requires to be investigated. It is further submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner in a case relating to Arms Act, the petitioner may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T