Patna High Court
Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner 2 but denied to petitioner 1.
Summary
The petitioners applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with a case involving alleged offences under Sections 25(1‑b), 25(1‑a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The police had recovered a large cache of firearms from the residence of co‑accused Ankit Kumar, who alleged that the weapons belonged to his cousin Ranjan Kumar (petitioner 1). Petitioner 2, Ram Ayodhya Yadav, is the father of Ankit Kumar, has no criminal record, is elderly and suffers from several illnesses, and claims he was implicated merely because of his relationship to the co‑accused. The State argued that custodial interrogation of both petitioners was necessary for the investigation. The Court, considering the petitioner 2’s age, health and clean record, granted him anticipatory bail, while refusing bail to petitioner 1, noting that his involvement required further investigation and possible interrogation. The order directed that petitioner 2 be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 2, who is the father of the co‑accused and has no criminal antecedent.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 1, whose name emerged from a confession of the co‑accused.
- Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for the further investigation of petitioner 1.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-a), 25(1-b), 26, 35
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- custodial interrogation
- age and health considerations
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2007 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2025 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar Yadav S/O Late Sunil Yadav R/O Vill and
P.S.- Shahpur. Dist.- Bhojpur, Ara.
2. Ram Ayodhya Yadav @ Ayodhya Kumar Yadav S/O Mahendra Singh R/O
Vill and P.S.- Shahpur. Dist.- Bhojpur, Ara.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma
For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pd.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Shahpur Police Station Case No. 234 of 2025, dated
13.09.2025, disclosing offences under Sections 25(1-
b)a/25(1-a)/26/35 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 13.09.2025, on the basis of secret information
from STF Team that co-accused Ankit Kumar has stored
cache of arms in his house, the police proceeded towards
the place of occurrence and upon raid from the room of
co-accused Ankit Kumar a huge quantity of fire arms
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2007 of 2026(4) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
including live cartridges were recovered. Upon enquiry
co-accused Ankit Kumar disclosed that fire arms
belonged to his cousin brother, namely, Ranjan Kumar i.e.
petitioner no. 1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner no. 2 is the father of co-accused Ankit Kumar
from whose room the fire arms have been recovered.
Petitioner no. 2 is old persons having no criminal
antecedent and has been suffering from several diseases.
He further submits that the petitioner no. 2 has been made
accused merely because he happens to be the father of co-
accused Ankit Kumar and resides in the same house. In so
far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, his name has
transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused Ankit Kumar recorded during course of
investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the State, referring to the case diary,
submits that name of the petitioner no. 1 has transpired
during course of investigation. He next submits that
learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, has
taken note of the fact that a huge quantity of firm-arms
have been recovered. The investigation of the case is at an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2007 of 2026(4) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
initial stage and custodial interrogation is required in
order to ascertain the truth.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the
parties and taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioner no. 2 is father of co-accused Ankit Kumar, aged
about 58 years, having no criminal antecedent, I am
inclined to grant the petitioner no. 2 privilege of
anticipatory bail.
7. This application in respect of petitioner no. 2 is,
accordingly, allowed.
8. Insofar as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, his name has
transpired during course of investigation which may be
the basis of further investigation against him for which
custodial interrogation may be required, accordingly, I am
not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.
1.
9. This application in respect of petitioner no. 1 is,
accordingly, dismissed.
10.Let the petitioner no. 2, Ram Ayodhya Yadav @ Ayodhya
Kumar Yadav, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the Court below within four weeks, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2007 of 2026(4) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, in connection with Shahpur
Police Station Case No. 234 of 2025, subject to the
condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
ashwani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.