Patna High Court
Ranjay YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail as there is no material evidence recovered from him and the prosecution’s case is insufficient.
Summary
Ranjay Yadav applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, where the prosecution alleged possession of a country‑made pistol and live cartridges by co‑accused. No weapon or ammunition was recovered from the petitioner, and his name appeared only in the co‑accused’s statement, which the petitioner claims is false. The State opposed bail, citing two prior criminal cases against the petitioner. The Court examined the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the arms and considered his long pre‑trial detention since 21‑Oct‑2025. Concluding that the prosecution’s case was weak and the petitioner’s antecedents did not outweigh his right to liberty, the Court ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the allegations under the Arms Act
- Whether the co‑accused’s statement alone is sufficient to justify continued detention
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑B)a, 26, 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10645 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2025 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna
======================================================
Ranjay Yadav, S/O Late Ram Kewal Yadav, Resident of Village- Shardha
Chapra, P.S.- Ranitalab, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 398 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from
the possession of one Anil Yadav, one country made pistol and
one live cartridge were recovered. As far as from possession of
Vikash Kumar Suman, 19 live cartridges were recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. His name
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10645 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
has surfaced in the statement of the co-accused who has stated
that he has managed to escape and that he was having a gun. It
has further been submitted that save and except the statement of
the co-accused, there is nothing against the petitioner. He is
languishing in judicial custody since 21.10.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the application for bail and has submitted
that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two cases.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1 st
Class, Danapur (Patna) in connection with Ranitalab P.S. Case
No. 398 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…