Patna High Court

Ramu Yadav @ Ram Sogarath YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient evidence to link him to the alleged Arms Act offences.

Summary

The petitioner, Ramu Yadav, was implicated in a police case (Bheja PS Case No.83 of 2025) for alleged offences under Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act, based on a viral social‑media video showing a person with a gun. The petitioner contended that he was not the individual in the video, that no offence could be proved against him, and that the suspicion arose only from a local sarpanch. The State opposed bail, arguing that the allegations fell within the ambit of the Arms Act. The Court considered the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the gun and the procedural safeguards under the Bihar Non‑Bailable and Surrender (BNSS) Act, 2023. It granted anticipatory bail, subject to a bond of Rs.30,000 and conditions under Section 2(1)(d) of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 482(2) of the same Act, to be satisfied by the Chief Judicial Magistrate‑II, Jhanjharpur.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the BNSS, 2023 in the absence of direct evidence linking him to the alleged offence under the Arms Act.
Whether the petitioner can be said to have committed an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act based solely on the viral video.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27, 3

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Arms Act
viral social media
bail bond
Bihar
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15876 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2025 Thana- BHEJA District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Ramu Yadav @ Ram Sogarath Yadav S/o- Bauyee Jee Yadav R/v- Khajuri
                 PS- Bheja District-Madhubani
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-03-2026                      Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and

                   Learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Bheja P.S. Case No.83 of 2025 lodged on 17.06.2025, for

                   the offences punishable under Sections 3/27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   six named accused persons against whom there is allegation that

                   they all involved in threatening by virtue of making viral social

                   media upload keeping gun in their hand.

                                4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

                   also submits that the petitioner is not a person whose

                   photograph with gun becomes viral. He further submits that the

                   name of the petitioner has come by virtue of suspicion raised by

                   Sarpunch that he may involve in such gang.

                                5. Counsel submits that the criminal antecedent of the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15876 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
                                                       2/2




                     petitioner is not clean as there is one criminal case pending

                     against him. He further submits that no offence of Arms Act is

                     made out against the petitioner as he was not seen in the viral

                     photograph.

                                  6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                     bail of the petitioner and submits that as per allegation,

                     ingredient of Arms Act is not against the petitioner.

                                  7. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of

                     this case, let the above named petitioner be released on

                     anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the

                     learned Court below within a period of 4 weeks from today, on

                     furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand)

                     as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the BNSS, 2023 to the

                     satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Jhanjharpur,

                     Madhubani in connection with Bheja P.S. Case No.83 of 2025,

                     subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the BNSS,

                     2023.



                                                                 (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…