Patna High Court
Dinesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was granted because the prosecution failed to produce any material evidence linking the petitioner to the seized arms.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Yadav, was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 25(1B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, although no arms were recovered from his possession. The prosecution alleged that arms were found on a co‑accused, Amir Yadav, and that the petitioner had two prior criminal cases. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that the case against him was based solely on suspicion. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. After hearing both sides, the Court found that the lack of material evidence against the petitioner justified bail and ordered his release on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the Arms Act when no contraband is recovered from his possession
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal cases justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1B)(a), 26, 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedent
- suspicion
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22076 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- NTPC District- Patna
======================================================
Dinesh Yadav, S/o- Late Suresh Yadav, Resident of village- Dargahi tola PS-
Pandarak District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rana Ishwar Chandra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with N.T.P.C. P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections25(1B)a, 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that three
accused persons including petitioner were apprehended by the
police and nothing has been recovered from the possession of
this petitioner. However, from the possession of one accused
Amir Yadav, arms were recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22076 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/2
case only on the basis of suspicion. Nothing has been recovered
from his possession which is apparent from the seizure list.
Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.11.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the application for bail and has submitted
that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two 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 learned Court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Barh in connection
with N.T.P.C. P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.