Patna High Court
Amir YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent outweighed the grounds for bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Amir Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case (Mansi PS Case No. 28 of 2026) where he was accused under Sections 25(1‑B)(i), 26(2) and 35 of the Arms Act for possession of arms and a series of machines for making arms. The prosecution alleged that arms and machinery were recovered and that the petitioner’s motorcycle, which was seized, linked him to the offence. The petitioner argued that he was innocent and that his inclusion was merely due to the recovered motorcycle, also noting a pending bail case against him. The State opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent, including another pending Arms Act case. The Court, considering the gravity of the recovered weapons and the petitioner’s criminal record, declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person accused under the Arms Act for possession of arms and machinery for making arms.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent and pending case under the Arms Act preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(i), 26(2), 35
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail denial
- serious offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26989 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2026 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Amir Yadav S/o- Bindeshwar Yadav Village- Bihari Marar tola PS-Muffasil,
Dist- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Budhilal Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Mansi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2026 lodged on 31.01.2026, for
the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(i), 26(2) & 35 of
the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 st,
Khagaria.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
two named accused persons including the present petitioner and
unknown person with allegation that arms and series of machine
for preparation of arms have been recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
submits that on the basis of suspicion, the petitioner has been
made accused in this case. Counsel submits that name of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26989 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/2
petitioner has figured in this case only due to the reason that a
motorcycle was recovered which belongs to the petitioner. He
further submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is
not clean as there is one case pending against him in which, he
is on bail.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that criminal antecedent of the
petitioner is not clean as there is one case pending against him
which is also registered under Arms Act and this aspect must be
taken into consideration.
6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
the case considering that not only arms, but series of machine
for preparation of arms have been recovered, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…