Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar @ Shiv KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing release on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Summary

The petitioner, Ranjeet Yadav, sought bail for offences under several sections of the Bihar Non-Compulsory Statutes (BNS) and the Arms Act arising from a family dispute in which a pistol and live cartridges were recovered, though no one was injured. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fired the weapon and that he has five prior criminal cases. The petitioner contended that nothing was seized from his possession, that the seizure violated Section 105 of the BNS, and that he was framed due to the family dispute, having been in judicial custody since 18‑12‑2025. The State opposed bail citing the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. After hearing both sides, the Court found that the lack of injury and procedural lapses in the seizure justified bail, and ordered the petitioner to be released on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
  • Whether the seizure of the pistol and cartridges complied with Section 105 of the Bihar Non-Compulsory Statutes.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal record warrants denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • seizure
  • family dispute
  • arms possession
  • procedural compliance

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20817 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-513 Year-2025 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar @ Shiv Kumar S/O Bechan Yadav @ Bechan
                 Kumar Yadav R/o village - Dhanauja , P.S.- Phulparas , District - Madhubani

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s :    Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                            ORAL ORDER

2   02-04-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Phulparas P.S. Case No.513 of 2025 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2),

                   109(1), 352, 351(2) & 3(5) of the BNS and under Sections 25(1-

                   b)a, 26, 35 & 27 of the Arms Act.

                               3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that in

                   family dispute the petitioner has fired but nobody has received

                   no injury. A country made pistol and two live cartridges were

                   recovered.

                               4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that nothing has been recovered from

                   the possession of this petitioner. Learned counsel for the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20817 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      petitioner has further submitted that the witnesses of the seizure

                      list are police personnel and police have not complied Section

                      105 of the BNSS while making seizure. Moreover, nobody has

                      received any injury. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

                      further submitted that the petitioner has been framed in this case

                      due to family dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

                      further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since

                      18.12.2025.

                                   5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                      for the State. Learned APP has further stated that the petitioner

                      is having criminal antecedent of five cases.

                                   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

                      A.C.J.M.-II, Jhanjharpur in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case

                      No.513 of 2025.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.