5 min readPatnaJul 14, 2026 09:15 AM IST
First published on: Jul 14, 2026 at 05:55 AM IST
Opposing educator and YouTuber Faisal Khan’s plea before the Patna High Court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him in connection with an alleged firing incident outside his coaching institute, the Bihar Police argued that the “possession of a valid arms licence by itself does not confer an unrestricted or absolute right to discharge firearms in a public place”.
The development comes after a Patna court granted anticipatory bail to Khan, popularly known as Khan Sir, and three of his staff members. Two arrested security guards were granted regular bail.
Khan had approached the High Court on June 9 through advocates Abhishek Kumar, Urvashi Bharti and Shubham Shivansh, seeking quashing of the FIR. His petition contended, among other grounds, that no firearm or ammunition had been recovered from him. He had also sought protection from coercive action, including arrest, and other reliefs concerning the functioning of his coaching institutes.
The High Court on June 10 issued notice to the state, directed it to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks, and allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder thereafter. The matter was listed for hearing on Monday, with the court directing that the “position be retained” in the meantime. The state filed its response on Monday.
‘Credible information’
Opposing Khan’s plea, the state said the FIR was not based on “mere conjectures or surmises” and maintained that the case had been registered after receipt of credible information regarding cognisable offences and subsequent verification of the incident.
Responding to Khan’s contention that no firearm or ammunition had been recovered from him, the police said the argument was “wholly misconceived and legally unsustainable”.
“The scope of investigation is not confined merely to the person from whose possession the weapon is recovered,” the affidavit said, adding, “Whether any person has instigated, abetted, facilitated or otherwise participated in the commission of the alleged offence is a matter to be determined during investigation on the basis of the entire evidence collected and not merely on the basis of physical recovery from a particular accused.”
The state also rejected the contention that the case was based only on statements of the two arrested security guards. It said the investigation considered multiple materials, including the viral video, statements of independent witnesses, seizure of firearms and ammunition, verification of arms licences and other surrounding circumstances.
On the issue of the security guards’ arms licences, the affidavit said the licences were independently verified. However, it argued that “the existence of valid arms licences in favour of the two security guards does not, by itself, justify the alleged firing in a public place”, adding that investigators must examine whether the use of the weapons was in accordance with law and licence conditions.
The police further submitted that Khan’s claim of private defence involved disputed questions of fact requiring the appreciation of evidence and could not be decided in Writ proceedings while the investigation was continuing.
According to the State, supervisory authorities examined the case diary and found prima facie material warranting continuation of investigation against the accused, including Khan, under Section 109 (attempt to murder) of BNS, and Sections 25(9), 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal and Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel, the state argued that the case did not warrant quashing of the FIR at the investigation stage.
Responding to the State’s filing, Khan’s counsel Abhishek Kumar told The Indian Express, “Since the matter is sub judice and the investigation is admittedly at a preliminary stage, we do not propose to argue the merits outside the courtroom. We are examining the averments made in the counter affidavit, and all submissions in response will be made by way of the appropriate pleadings before the Hon’ble Court.”
June 2 violence
The case relates to violence outside Khan Global Studies (KGS) in Patna’s Musallahpur Haat area on the night of June 2. Police had said a group allegedly linked to a rival coaching institute vandalised the premises and assaulted a security guard. The state’s affidavit said the subsequent alleged firing by armed security guards constituted “an independent occurrence attracting separate criminal liability”, making registration of a separate FIR “legally justified and necessary”.
Police later said they verified videos purportedly showing two KGS security guards firing outside the institute after the violence had ended, leading to the separate FIR against Khan, the guards and others. The state said the investigation was continuing in accordance with the law and that no final opinion had yet been formed beyond the material collected so far, disclosing cognisable offences warranting continuation of the probe.
The development comes after a Patna court granted anticipatory bail to Khan, popularly known as Khan Sir, and three of his staff members. Two arrested security guards were granted regular bail. (File Photo) 
Share
