Patna High Court
Rahul YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Yadav, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was not arrested at the scene, that the FIR was lodged a day after the alleged incident, and that the seizure list was prepared prior to the FIR, suggesting procedural irregularities. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The court noted the delay in registration, the completion of the investigation, and the petitioner’s prolonged custody since 17‑12‑2025, and found no compelling reason to deny bail. Consequently, the court ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of equal amount.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the offences under the Arms Act
- Whether procedural lapses in FIR registration and investigation justify granting bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑B)(a), 26, 35
Subjects
- regular bail
- Arms Act
- Section 25(1‑B)(a)
- Section 26
- Section 35
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail jurisprudence
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20302 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria
======================================================
Rahul Yadav, S/o- Masudhan Yadav @ Madhusudan Yadav, Resident of
Bangaliya Rohiyar, P.S.- Mansi District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ahmad Ali, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 26-03-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Chautham P. S. Case No. 308 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested at the place of occurrence and his
name was revealed by co-accused Ramratan Yadav and Guddu
Kumar and the FIR was registered after the delay of one day
despite the alleged recovery of firearms and the seizure list
appears to have been prepared one day in advance prior to the
registration of the FIR and only police personnel have been
shown as witnesses to the alleged occurrence. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20302 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
2/2
17.12.2025 and against him the investigation has been
completed, though he is accused in two more cases in which he
is on bail.
4. Learned APP for the State opposes the bail prayer
of the petitioner.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case and
considering the statements made in the petition as well as above
submissions, coupled with the petitioner's custody period and
completion of investigation against him, this court is inclined to
release him on bail. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above
be enlarged on bail in connection with Chautham P. S. Case No.
308 of 2025, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
U T
Checking your session…