Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rajniti YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application.

Summary

Petitioner Rajniti Yadav applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Sections 25(1‑b)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, alleging seizure of liquor, a pistol and cartridges. The prosecution’s informant, based on a secret tip, claimed the items were recovered from a cow shed and that the petitioner’s brother, Somari Yadav, named him as an accomplice. The petitioner contended that the seizure was from his brother, that he was not present at the scene, and that the brother’s allegation alone should not suffice for bail denial. The State highlighted the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the brother’s testimony. Considering the allegations, the brother’s identification, and the petitioner’s past record, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail, directing that if he surrenders within four weeks and files a regular bail application, the matter will be considered promptly.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite being named by his brother in the FIR.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Arms Act
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • criminal antecedent
  • seizure
  • brother's testimony
  • bail application

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21607 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2026 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Rajniti Yadav S/o Late Parmanand Yadav Resident of Village- Tulsi Tol, P.S.-
                 Ballia, District- Begusarai

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-04-2026                    Heard Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

                                 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Ballia P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026 registered for

                   the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26 and 35 of

                   the Arms Act and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and

                   Excise Act, lodged on 15.01.2026 by the informant Md.

                   Sarfuddin.

                                 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   that on secret information, the cow shed was raided and there is

                   recovery/seizure of 11 liter of country made liquor beside a

                   country made pistol and some cartridges from Somari Yadav, he

                   named this petitioner, the brother to be accomplice. This led to

                   the F.I.R..
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21607 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                                   4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                      admittedly, the recovery/seizure is from Somari Yadav and not

                      from this petitioner, he was not even present on the spot but the

                      brother has named him.

                                   5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that

                      the petition shows that he has criminal antecedent whereas the

                      supplementary affidavit later filed record that the petitioner is

                      accused in five criminal antecedent, his own brother has named

                      him.

                                   6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties,

                      as also his past record, beside his own brother has named him,

                      in that background, this Court refrains from extending any relief

                      to the petitioner.

                                   7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

                                   8. However, if the petitioner surrenders within a

                      period of four weeks, files bail application, the court concerned

                      shall consider the matter and dispose it of preferably on the

                      same day.



                                                     (Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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