Patna High Court
Chandan Bhagat @ Laden vs The State Of Bihar on 18 February, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.895 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2014 Thana- Kharagpur District- Munger
======================================================
Chandan Bhagat @ Laden Son of Vindeshavari Bhagat Resident of Village -
Dariyapur, P.s.- Gangta , Distt.- Munger.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Satya Narayan Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present appeal preferred by appellant,
namely, Chandan Bhagat @ Laden against judgment of
conviction dated 31.01.2022 and order of sentence dated
03.02.2022
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge V th,
Munger in connection with Sessions Trial No. 114 of 2015,
whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.
2,000/- under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.
2000/- under Section 26(11) of the Arms Act, in default of
payment of fine, the learned trial court ordered the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
2/16
to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and further
ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Case of prosecution in brief as it appears that
ASI recorded his self-statement alleging that on 26 April
2016 he received secret information that appellant was
illegally manufacturing and selling firearms from his house
and could be arrested if a raid was conducted. Acting on this
tip-off, the informant reached the accused house at about
3:30 PM and saw a person closing the gate, who escaped
despite police efforts to apprehend him. Through local
choukidar Anil Mishra and Md. Akul, the person was identified
as appellant. As no one agreed to act as a witness, the police
entered and searched the house, recovering from the
courtyard several mini gun factory instruments, including a
drill machine, bhanti, half-manufactured barrel, iron chisel,
reti, 25 grams of gunpowder, two iron triggers, and a gas
cutter, after which a seizure list was prepared.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written information,
Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2014 was lodged under
under Section 25(1-A), 25(1-AA),25(1-B)c, 25(1)(11)(111)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
3/16
of the Arms Act and 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act against
the appellant.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has
examined altogether four witnesses. They are:-
Prosecution
Witnesses No(s). Names
P.W. 1 Shambhu Kr. Paswan, In-
charge of Gangta P.S.
P.W. 2 Mukesh Paswan, I.O
P.W. 3 Dinesh Kr. Singh
P.W. 4 Girjan Prasad
P.W. 5 Indrajeet Singh
P.W. 6 Md. Abul (Choukidar)
P.W. 7 Anil Kr. Mishra
(Choukidar)
P.W. 8 Prem Nandan Prasad
6. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has
also relied upon following documents/exhibits in order to
prove the charges:-
Exhibit No(s). List of documents
Exhibit-1 Seizure list
Exhibit-1/1 Signature of witness Md.
Abdul on Seizure list
Exhibit-1/2 Signature of witness Anil
Kr. Mishra on Seizure list
Exhibit-2 Self written statement
Exhibit-3 Endorsement of self
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
4/16written statement
Exhibit-4 Formal FIR
Exhibit-5 Weapon inspection report
Exhibit-6 Signing of Prosecution
Sanction order
7. On the basis of evidences, as surfaced during
the trial, the appellant/convict was examined under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C., where he denied all incriminatic
evidences as surfaced against him during trial and claimed
his complete innocence and false implication.
8. Neither any defence witness nor any
document was exhibited in support of defence by
appellant/convict.
9. Upon the basis of evidences as surfaced
during the trial and also by taking note of the argument as
advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties, the learned trial court convicted appellant/convict
and passed order of sentence, as stated hereinabove.
10. Being aggrieved with aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the appellant/convict
preferred the present appeal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
5/16
11. Hence the present appeal.
Argument on behalf of the
appellant/convict:
12. It is submitted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant/convict that maximum
seized materials during the course of raid appearing
household materials and, therefore, allegation qua
manufacturing of fire-arms is completely baseless against
the appellant. It is submitted that during trial, PW-4
namely, Girjan Prasad and PW-5 namely, Indrajeet Singh,
who are seizure list witnesses, categorically deposed that
nothing was recovered before them, even PW-4 stated that
no seizure list was prepared before him. He, even, failed to
identify the appellant/convict. Interestingly, these two
witnesses are from the same department, but did not
supported the factum of raid and seizure, as alleged,
against the appellant/convict.
13. It is submitted that learned Trial Court
ought to have held that the prosecution has miserably failed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
6/16
to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The entire
prosecution case rests solely upon the testimonies of police
personnel, with no independent witness coming forward
either to support the alleged occurrence or the seizure.
Such absence of independent corroboration seriously dents
the credibility of the prosecution story and renders the
conviction unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further
submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate
the material contradictions and discrepancies appearing in
the oral testimonies of the material witnesses and the
informant, particularly regarding the manner of occurrence
and the alleged seizure of articles. These inconsistencies go
to the root of the prosecution case. Moreover, no FSL report
has been produced to establish that the seized powder was
in fact gunpowder. In the absence of any scientific
confirmation, the prosecution’s claim regarding seizure of
25 grams of gunpowder remains unsubstantiated and
doubtful. It is also submitted that several police witnesses
themselves admitted that the seized articles are capable of
domestic use and bore no specific identifying marks. This
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
7/16
admission further weakens the prosecution case.
Additionally, the alleged recovery was made from a joint
house, making it highly difficult to ascertain from whose
exclusive possession or room the articles were recovered.
The learned Trial Court failed to properly consider these
vital aspects, thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice.
14. In support of submission, learned counsel for
the appellant relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Sukhjit Singh v.
State of Punjab, (2014) 10 SCC 270 and Mohmed
Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat
reported in (2018) 10 SCC 501.
Argument on behalf of State:
15. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State
categorically submitted that recovery was made from the
house of the appellant/convict, but fairly conceded that said
house appears joint property in view of deposition of PW-1.
16. I have perused the trial court records carefully
and gone through the evidences available on record and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
8/16
also considered the rival submissions as canvassed by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
17. As to re-appreciate the evidences, while
disposing the present appeal, it would be apposite to
discuss the evidences available on record, which are as
under:-
18. PW-1 namely, Shambhu Kr. Paswan
deposed that on 26.04.2014 while posted as Officer-in-
Charge of Gangta Police Station, he received secret
information regarding illegal arms manufacturing by the
accused. Acting upon the information, he conducted a raid
along with police personnel and Choukidars, during which
one person allegedly fled and was identified as the accused.
Certain manufacturing items were seized from the house.
However, in cross-examination, he admitted that the
accused had a brother but he did not know their names or
whether they lived jointly. He further stated that no
documentary label was attached to the seized articles, only
marker identification was used, and he was unaware
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
9/16
whether the seized items were produced before the Court or
sent for expert examination. He also admitted that the
seized tools could be used for domestic purposes such as
making agricultural implements or drilling walls/doors.
19. PW-2 namely, Mukesh Paswan in his
cross-examination, deposed that no FSL report had been
furnished to him. He further stated that statement of
persons residing near the boundary were not recorded,
suggesting lack of independent corroboration. He also
admitted that the seized articles were kept in the Malkhana
where many other articles were already stored, raising
doubt regarding identification and preservation of the
alleged seized materials.
20. PW-3 namely, Dinesh Kr. Singh stated in
his cross-examination that the seized articles were of the
type commonly used for general domestic purposes and
that no identifying marks were inscribed on them. This
testimony cast doubt on the exclusive linkage of the articles
with illegal arms manufacturing.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
10/16
21. PW-4 namely, Girjan Prasad deposed that
no seizure was made in his presence. He further stated that
tools such as chisel and hammer, allegedly seized, are
capable of being used for various ordinary works, thereby
weakening the prosecution claim regarding their specific
illegal use.
22. PW-5 namely, Inderjit Singh stated in
cross-examination that he could not say in whose house the
raid was conducted. He further admitted that he had not
seen any seized item during the raid and was unable to
identify the accused, which seriously affected the credibility
of the prosecution’s version.
22. PW-6 namely, Md. Abul deposed that on
26.04.2014, while posted as Chowkidar at Gangta Police
Station, he accompanied the Station House Officer, a Saif
Bal personnel, and Chowkidar Anil Mishra to raid the house
of accused at Dariyapur. During the raid, semi-finished
firearm parts and manufacturing materials were recovered,
and a seizure list was prepared in his presence bearing his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
11/16
signature (Exhibit 1/1). He also identified the accused in
court. In his cross-examination, PW-6 admitted he
remained outside the house during the raid, did not see the
actual recovery, and did not know the contents of the
seizure list, identifying the accused mainly because he was
from his village.
23. PW-7 namely, Anil Kumar Mishra similarly
stated that he joined the raid with the police team on secret
information about illegal arms manufacturing, recovery of
weapons-making materials was made, and he signed the
seizure list (Exhibit 1/2) and identified the accused. In his
cross-examination, PW-7 also admitted he was outside the
house, did not witness the recovery, and could not say from
which room the items were seized, though he maintained
the incident occurred.
24. PW-8 namely, Prem Nandan Prasad
proved the prosecution sanction, stating that on
09.08.2014 sanction for prosecution under relevant Arms
Act sections against the accused was granted by the then
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
12/16
District Magistrate, whose initials he recognized on the
sanction order (Exhibit-6). In his cross-examination, PW-8
stated the sanction order was neither typed nor signed in
his presence; no police reports were attached; he did not
know who obtained the District Magistrate’s signature; and
the order lacked the DM’s full signature, though he denied
fabrication and affirmed receiving court summons.
25. In this context, it would be apposite to
reproduce para 10 to 13 of Sukhjit Singh case (supra)
which reads as follows:-
“10. On a studied scrutiny of the questions put under
Section 313 CrPC in entirety, we find that no
incriminating material has been brought to the notice of
the accused while putting questions. Mr Talwar has
submitted that the requirement as engrafted under
Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality. To buttress
the aforesaid submission, he has drawn inspiration from
the authority in Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar [(2009) 6
SCC 595 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 92] . Relying upon the
same, he would contend that when the incriminating
materials have not been put to the accused under Section
313 CrPC it tantamounts to serious lapse on the part of
the trial court making the conviction vitiated in law.
11. In this context, we may profitably refer to a four-
Judge Bench decision in Tara Singh v. State [1951 SCC
903 : AIR 1951 SC 441 : (1951) 52 Cri LJ 1491]
wherein, Bose, J. explaining the significance of the
faithful and fair compliance with Section 342 of the Code
as it stood then, opined thus: (AIR pp. 445-46, para 30)
“30. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of
observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Section
342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not a proper
compliance to read out a long string of questions and
answers made in the committal court and ask whether the
statement is correct. A question of that kind is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
13/16misleading. It may mean either that the questioner wants
to know whether the recording is correct, or whether the
answers given are true, or whether there is some mistake
or misunderstanding despite the accurate recording. In
the next place, it is not sufficient compliance to string
together a long series of facts and ask the accused what
he has to say about them. He must be questioned
separately about each material circumstance which is
intended to be used against him. The whole object of the
section is to afford the accused a fair and proper
opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear
against him. The questioning must therefore be fair and
must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate
person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even
when an accused person is not illiterate, his mind is apt to
be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. He is
therefore in no fit position to understand the significance
of a complex question. Fairness therefore requires that
each material circumstance should be put simply and
separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is
perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and
understand. I do not suggest that every error or omission
in this behalf would necessarily vitiate a trial because I
am of opinion that errors of this type fall within the
category of curable irregularities. Therefore, the question
in each case depends upon the degree of the error and
upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to
have been occasioned. In my opinion, the disregard of the
provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
is so gross in this case that I feel there is grave likelihood
of prejudice.”
12. In Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya
Bharat [1951 SCC 1060 : AIR 1953 SC 468 : 1953 Cri LJ
1933] , Bose, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench
highlighting the importance of recording of the statement
of the accused under the Code expressed thus: (AIR pp.
469-70, para 8)
“8. Now the statements of an accused person recorded
under Sections 208, 209 and 342, Criminal Procedure
Code are among the most important matters to be
considered at the trial. It has to be remembered that in
this country an accused person is not allowed to enter the
box and speak on oath in his own defence. This may
operate for the protection of the accused in some cases
but experience elsewhere has shown that it can also be a
powerful and impressive weapon of defence in the hands
of an innocent man. The statements of the accused
recorded by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions
Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in
England and in America he would be free to state in his
own way in the witness box.”
13. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Ajay
Singh v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 12 SCC 341 :
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
14/16(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 371] in following terms: (SCC pp.
347-48, para 14)
“14. The word ‘generally’ in sub-section (1)(b) does not
limit the nature of the questioning to one or more
questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it
means that the question should relate to the whole case
generally and should also be limited to any particular part
or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way
as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain,
what are the circumstances which are against him and for
which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the
section is to afford the accused a fair and proper
opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear
against him and that the questions must be fair and must
be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate
person will be able to appreciate and understand. A
conviction based on the accused’s failure to explain what
he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole
object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the
attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific
points in the charge and in the evidence on which the
prosecution claims that the case is made out against the
accused so that he may be able to give such explanation
as he desires to give.”
26. It would be apposite to reproduce para no.
20 of Mohmed Rafiq Abdul Rahim Shaikh case
(Supra) which is as under :-
20. In Gunwantlal v. State of M.P. [Gunwantlal v. State of M.P.,
(1972) 2 SCC 194 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 678] , this Court held that a
person cannot be charged with the offences unless it can be
shown that he had the knowledge that any sort of prohibited item
was present in his house.
“5. … In some cases under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act, 1878 it
has been held that the word “possession” means exclusive
possession and the word “control” means effective control but this
does not solve the problem. As we said earlier, the first
precondition for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element
of intention, consciousness or knowledge with which a person
possessed the firearm before it can be said to constitute an
offence and secondly, that possession need not be physical
possession but can be constructive, having power and control over
the gun, while the person to whom physical possession is given
holds it subject to that power and control. In any disputed
question of possession, specific facts admitted or proved will alone
establish the existence of the de facto relation of control or the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
15/16dominion of the person over it necessary to determine whether
that person was or was not in possession of the thing in question.”
(SCC p. 198, para 5)
28. Considering aforesaid discussions it appears
that prosecution failed to answer several questions during the
trial, which creates a serious doubt qua crime in question,
benefit of which must be extended to the appellant.
29. Considering the aforesaid discussions and by
taking note of fact in particular that even the seizure list
witness P.W.-6 and 7 failed to support the seizure and denied
any recovery in their presence, prosecution failed to establish
recovery of alleged fire arms from conscious physical
possession of this appellant on the basis of available evidence.
30. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed.
31. The impugned judgment of conviction dated
31.01.2022 and order of sentence dated 03.02.2022 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge Vth, Munger in Sessions
Trial No. 114 of 2015 arising out of Kharagpur P.S. Case No.
106 of 2014 is hereby set aside/quashed.
32. Accordingly, above named appellant is
acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.895 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
16/16
33. Appellant is on bail, upon his acquittal,
bailors and sureties stands discharged from their liabilities.
34. Office is directed to send back the trial court
records along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court,
forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.02.2026 Transmission Date 18.02.2026
