Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Kumar Bharti @ Chandan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21163 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2026 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Kumar Bharti @ Chandan Yadav S/o Ganpat Yadav @ Baniya Yadav R/o Village- Tulsi Tol, P.S- Ballia, Dist- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kishor Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Asha Devi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 1.

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

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ballia P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of Arms Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of four cases and allegation is of recovery of 11 litres of country made liquor along with country made pistol, one empty cartridge and one live cartridge from cowshed of Rajniti Yadav.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21163 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026 2/2 recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Somari in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the case has been instituted under the Arms Act also and allegation is of recovery of country made pistol along with cartridges. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, but his name transpired in confessional statement of co-accused and petitioner has antecedent of four cases and if privilege of anticipatory is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

6.

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

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T