A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra was hearing an appeal filed by Satyam Kumar against the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the Special Judge, NIA, Patna, rejecting his bail application in Special Case No. 06 of 2024.

The case arose from Fakuli (Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024, subsequently re-registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as RC No. 11/2024/NIA/DLI. The appellant was facing offences under Sections 25(1-AA), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 13, 16 and 18 of the UAPA.

As per the prosecution case, on 07.05.2024, a police team apprehended the appellant and co-accused Vikas Kumar from Muzaffarpur Railway Station. An AK-47 rifle butt and a lens allegedly associated with the firearm were stated to have been recovered. Vikas Kumar allegedly disclosed that he possessed an illegally manufactured AK-47 assault rifle which had been handed over to Dev Mani Rai @ Anish for concealment. Acting on the disclosure, the police proceeded to Dev Mani Rai's residence and subsequently recovered an AK-47 rifle, without its butt, from beneath a bridge near Maltabani Road.

The local police submitted a charge-sheet on 27.06.2024 under the Arms Act. The matter was subsequently taken over by the NIA, which re-registered the case and Sections 13, 16 and 18 of the UAPA were added on 11.02.2025.

The Court noted that the NIA had not found any linkage of the appellant with any Naxal or terrorist group. The Bench further noted that there was no digital connection between the appellant and the co-accused and no financial transaction between them. It also found that the alleged seizure of the lens from the appellant at Muzaffarpur Railway Station was not evident from the seizure list. Rather, the seizure list showed that the seizure was made at Village Mankauli approximately two-and-a-half hours after the appellant had been taken into custody.

The only other material against the appellant was that he had visited Dimapur once with his cousin brother Vikas and stayed with him. The Court also took into account the appellant's prolonged incarceration. He had been in custody since 07.05.2024 and had remained in jail for over two years and five months, while only two out of 91 charge-sheeted witnesses had been examined.

The Bench further noted that the appellant had no criminal antecedent. Having regard to these circumstances, the Court set aside the order rejecting bail and directed the appellant's release on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.

The Court directed the appellant to attend the trial on every date fixed by the Special Judge and provided that his bail bond could be cancelled in case of absence without plausible reason. He was also directed not to leave the country without the Court's permission and to deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

Appearance:

For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar, Advocate; Mr. Raj Krishna Jha, Advocate

For the NIA: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl. P.P.; Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Pramod Kumar, P.P.