Patna High Court
Raju Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raju RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Raju Kumar Yadav, was implicated in a case under the Arms Act for possession of 133 live cartridges, based primarily on the confessional statement of co-accused Lalbabu Rai. The petitioner contended that no cartridges were recovered from his conscious possession and that the allegation was fabricated. The State highlighted the petitioner’s three prior criminal antecedents and argued against bail. The Court observed that, unlike similarly situated co-accused who had been granted bail, no material directly linked the petitioner to the seized cartridges. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. The bail order also imposed compliance conditions such as cooperation with the trial and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023 in the absence of material linking him to the seized cartridges.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused is sufficient ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)(a), 26, 35
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedent
- confessional statement
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1086 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2024 Thana- DORIGANJ District- Saran
======================================================
Raju Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raju Rai Son of Nand Kumar Ray
Resident of village- Chakiya (Kotwapatti Rampur), P.S- Doriganj, Dist- Saran
at chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Asha Devi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Doriganj P.S. Case No. 126 of 2024, F.I.R.
dated 15.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Section
25(1-b)(a)26 & 35 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, 133 live cartridges
marked on its Butt 8 MM KF have been recovered from the
possession of the petitioner and co-accused person, namely,
Lalbabu Rai.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1086 of 2026(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/4
present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not
committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from
the F.I.R. that altogether 135 live cartridges were recovered
from the possession of apprehended co-accused Lal Babu Rai
and petitioner has been made accused on the basis of
confessional statement co-accused Lal Babu Rai and except the
confessional statement of co-accused person, no any other
material has come during investigation to suggest the
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence and the
petitioner was not apprehended at the place of occurrence so
nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of
the petitioner and the similarly situated co-accused persons,
namely, Manohar Rai has been granted anticipatory bail by a
coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
22.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 72245 of 2024 and Sanjay
Rai has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order
dated 19.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 943 of 2025.
5. Learned APP for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner carries three criminal antecedents
other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1086 of 2026(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/4
paragraph 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in
two cases and one case is pending for consideration.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of
the petitioner, similarly situated co-accused persons have been
granted bail, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of
thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Saran at
Chapra, in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case No. 126 of 2024,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023
and with other following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1086 of 2026(2) dt.16-01-2026
4/4
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…