1 19-Cr.ABA-762-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [A.B.A.] NO. 762 OF 2026 Kuldeep s/o Bhagwandas Dongre -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. H.D. Marathe, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026. Heard. 2. Apprehending arrest, the applicant has approached this Court in connection with Crime No.393/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered with Police Station Gobarwahi, District Bhandara. 3. As per the prosecution's case, the informant, a Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Local Crime Branch, Bhandara, alleged that on 27/07/2026, upon receiving secret information, the police team went to the house of the applicant at Tq. Tumsar. Upon noticing the police, the applicant allegedly fled from the spot. During the subsequent search of the house, one automatic pistol, four live cartridges and one mobile phone, collectively valued at about Rs.73,000/-, were allegedly found Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:12142 2 19-Cr.ABA-762-2026 concealed beneath the mattress and were seized in the presence of panch witnesses. Based on these allegations, the First Information Report came to be registered on 28/07/2026 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, from the allegations in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the police received secret information that the applicant was in possession of a revolver and, accordingly, they came to the house of the applicant. On seeing the police, the applicant ran away from the spot. When the police searched the house of the applicant, an automatic pistol along with a magazine containing four live cartridges was found. He submits that there is no compliance with Section 185 of the BNSS and Section 22 of the Arms Act and, therefore, he contends that the Investigating Officer ought to have recorded the grounds of his belief in the case diary. Therefore, he submits that, considering the non-compliance with Section 185 read with Section 22 of the Arms Act, the search itself is illegal and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. The learned counsel further submits that no notice under Section 35(3) has been issued by the Investigating Officer, as the maximum punishment provided is five years, and therefore, he would be entitled to notice under Section 35(3). 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the application and submits that, if the accused is entitled to notice under Section 35(3), it is the Investigating Officer who will do the needful. He further submits that, if the Piyush Mahajan 3 19-Cr.ABA-762-2026 Investigating Officer wants to arrest the applicant, further procedure will be followed, and accordingly, he submits that merely because notice under Section 35(3) has not been issued till today, that by itself is not sufficient to grant bail to the applicant. The allegations in the F.I.R. are serious in nature. The custody of the applicant would be necessary in the given set of facts in order to ascertain from where he has brought the automatic pistol, as it was found in the house of the applicant. He further submits that, as soon as the applicant noticed the police, he ran away from the spot by locking the door, and therefore, the police were required to enter the house by breaking the lock. Accordingly, the automatic pistol was found under the bed. Under such circumstances, he submits that custodial interrogation would be necessary in order to crack down on the racket of arms and ammunition. Four live cartridges were also found, and therefore, according to the learned A.P.P., this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. So far as the applicability of Section 185 of BNSS read with Section 22 of the Arms Act is concerned, both the provisions are not applicable in the present case. It is further to be noted that so far as Section 35(3) is concerned, it is mandatory to issue notice, however, Section 35(1)(h) also speaks that the Investigating Officer can arrest subject to condition laid down in the said scheme. Piyush Mahajan 4 19-Cr.ABA-762-2026 Therefore, it is for the Investigating Officer to act as per the procedure established by law. However, so far as the present case is concerned, the application is filed for pre-arrest bail. Upon perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R., it appears that when the police authority received secret information that the applicant is possessing pistol, accordingly, they raided the house of the applicant. However, the applicant fled from the spot by seeing the police, and thereafter, when the police searched the house, an automatic pistol having 4 live cartridges was found in the house of the applicant under the bed. Under such circumstances, when the automatic pistol was found, in my opinion, it is necessary to crack down the entire racket of supplying such pistols and live cartridges, and therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the Criminal Application is rejected. [ (M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) Piyush Mahajan Signed by: Piyush Ramesh Mahajan Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2026 11:57:14