Patna High Court
Yogeshwar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Yogeshwar Yadav, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 25(1‑b)AA, 26(i)(ii) and 35 of the Arms Act, alleging involvement in a mini gun factory operating in his maize field. The prosecution claimed that arms and ammunition were recovered from the field and that co‑accused who were apprehended implicated the petitioner. The petitioner argued that nothing was seized from his personal possession, that the co‑accused had already been granted bail, and that he had been in judicial custody since 4 December 2025. The State opposed bail, citing a prior criminal antecedent. After hearing both sides, the Court found the petitioner’s case stronger and ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case under the Arms Act where no material was recovered from his possession
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent warrants denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)AA, 26(i)(ii), 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- illegal arms manufacturing
- criminal antecedent
- judicial custody
- sureties
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19115 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- Paura District- Khagaria
======================================================
Yogeshwar Yadav S/O Dhushan Yadav R/O Village- Basua, P.S.- Pasraha,
Distt.- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Paura P.S. Case No.23 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 25(1-b)AA, 26(i)(ii) and 35 of the
Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that police
had input that the petitioner along with others are running a mini
gun factory in his maize field. On the above information, the said
field was raided and arms and ammunitions were recovered. As
per the case of the prosecution, Md. Mumtaz and Md. Wasim were
apprehended and they have disclosed that the petitioner was also
involved in the manufacturing of illegal arms.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that nothing has been recovered from the
possession of the petitioner. Recovery has been made from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19115 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/2
maize field which is an open place. It has further been submitted
that the two accused persons who were apprehended and have
named this petitioner have been granted bail by the learned Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 73442 of 2025
with Cr. Misc. No. 87898 of 2025. The case of this petitioner
stands on better footing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since
04.12.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State. He has stated that the petitioner is having criminal
antecedent of one case.
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 court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with Paura P.S.
Case No.23 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…