Patna High Court
Jay Prakash YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Jay Prakash Yadav applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS and section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that Rupesh Yadav and Govind Yadav fired at the informant's husband and that the petitioner, along with Dabesh Yadav, was armed with a pistol, pointed it at the informant and threatened her. The petitioner contended that he did not fire any shot, caused no injury and was merely present, and that he had been in judicial custody since 16‑12‑2025. The State opposed the bail. After hearing both sides, the court found the petitioner’s claim of non‑participation credible and, considering the circumstances, ordered his release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite charges under sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS and section 27 of the Arms Act
- Whether the alleged presence of a firearm and threat to the informant justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regular bail
- Arms Act
- BNS
- criminal procedure
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17826 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-459 Year-2025 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Jay Prakash Yadav Son of Lalsi yadav Resident of Village - Belasara Ward no.
5, Police Station - Raniganj, District - Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under sections 103(1) and
61(2) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Rupesh
Yadav and Govind Yadav have fired at the husband of the
informant. It is further alleged that this petitioner and one
Dabesh Yadav were armed with pistol and they have pointed the
pistol against informant and have threatened her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the
FIR, it is clear that Rupesh Yadav and Govind Yadav are the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17826 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/2
main assailants. Only role of this petitioner is that he was
present there and was armed with pistol. He has made no firing.
He has caused no injury to anybody. Moreover, the petitioner is
languishing in judicial custody since 16.12.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.
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 released on bail in connection with
Raniganj P.S. Case No. 459 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-1st, Araria.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…