Prima facie evidence of active ammunition trafficking and constructive possession warrants denial of bail.

The appellant challenged the order dated 12 June 2026 by which the Special Judge, NIA, Patna rejected his regular bail application in Special Case No. 07 of 2025 arising from R.C. No. 01/2025/NIA/PAT.

The prosecution case originated from the seizure of substantial quantities of prohibited ammunition from a vehicle intercepted at Mohania Toll Plaza and from subsequent searches in Nalanda and Kurukshetra.

Investigation allegedly disclosed an inter-State ammunition-trafficking network involving Kamalkant, Kumar Abhijeet and others, with the appellant’s father operating “Kalra Gun House” in Kurukshetra.

The appellant and his father were arrested on 4 December 2025 from their shared family residence. Various cartridges, a 12-bore gun and cash were recovered from the premises, although no incriminating article was recovered from the appellant’s personal or conscious possession.

The appellant maintained that he operated an independent visa-consultancy business, had no criminal antecedents, and had been implicated merely because of his familial association with the licensed gun dealer.

The NIA relied on the disclosure statement of co-accused Kamalkant, which allegedly attributed to the appellant the packing and supply of ammunition, as well as on 304 calls between the appellant and Kamalkant, recoveries from the shared residence, discrepancies in the gun-house records, and the alleged absence of records for 11 firearms.

The appellant had remained in custody since 4 December 2025; the charge-sheet had been filed, charges had been framed, and eight prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail notwithstanding the serious allegations of organised inter-State trafficking of prohibited ammunition and the statutory offences charged against him.

Whether the materials collected by the prosecution—particularly the co-accused’s disclosure statement, call-detail records, recoveries from the jointly occupied residence, and gun-house irregularities—disclosed a prima facie case of the appellant’s active and knowing participation.

Whether the absence of recovery from the appellant’s personal possession and his claim of lack of conscious possession justified his release on bail.

Whether the appellant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet and progress of the trial warranted grant of bail.

The Court considered the offences under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 25(1)(a), 25(1AA), 25(8), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959, including the alleged offence under Section 25(1AA), which was treated as carrying severe punishment, including life imprisonment.

In assessing bail, the Court applied the principles that the court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the possible punishment, the character and strength of the prosecution evidence, the possibility of absconding, witness tampering, repetition of the offence and obstruction of justice, as stated in State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21.

Relying on Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, and National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, the Court held that, at the bail stage, evidence is not to be meticulously weighed, but the court must assess broad probabilities and, in cases under special statutes, examine the material sufficiently to determine whether it discloses a prima facie case.

Under Gunwant Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 1756, possession may be constructive and requires consciousness or knowledge together with power or control over the firearm or ammunition.

The Court also relied on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, regarding the need for reasoned and judicious consideration of bail in serious offences.

The Court found that the prosecution case against the appellant was not based merely on his presence in the family home or his relationship with the principal accused.

The disclosure statement of Kamalkant allegedly described the appellant as participating in the packing and supply of consignments of 3,000–4,000 rounds of ammunition.

This allegation was considered alongside 304 calls between the appellant and Kamalkant, the recovery of several categories of ammunition and cash from the shared residence, and the unexplained discrepancies in the records of the family-run gun house.

Applying the principle of constructive possession in Gunwant Lal, the Court held that the absence of recovery from the appellant’s person did not, at the bail stage, exclude knowledge, control or participation in relation to articles recovered from jointly occupied premises.

The Court treated the appellant’s explanation regarding the cash, the challenge to the admissibility or reliability of the disclosure statement, and the argument that the call records did not establish conspiracy as matters requiring evidentiary evaluation at trial.

The seriousness and scale of the alleged ammunition trafficking, the statutory punishment, and the alleged organised nature of the network outweighed the appellant’s custody period and the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court also considered the potential risks of absconding, influencing witnesses and obstructing the proceedings, particularly in view of the alleged involvement of close family members and the untraceability of the appellant’s brother.

It therefore refused to set aside the Special Judge’s order dated 12 June 2026 and dismissed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 989 of 2026.

The observations were expressly declared tentative and confined to the consideration of bail, without prejudice to the trial.

The Trial Court was directed to expedite the proceedings and endeavour to conclude the trial within one year from receipt of the order; if the trial was not concluded within that period, the appellant was granted liberty to renew his bail application before the Trial Court.