Patna High Court
Daya Kant @ Tantu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Daya Kant Yadav, was charged under Sections 25(1‑BA), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act for allegedly possessing a country‑made pistol and two live cartridges. The prosecution contended that the weapon and cartridges were recovered from the petitioner’s conscious possession, while the petitioner argued they were seized from his jointly occupied house and that he had no personal possession of them. He claimed innocence, a clean antecedent, and had been in custody since 29‑10‑2025. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the specific allegation of possession. The High Court, after reviewing the FIR, seizure list and the lower court’s order, declined to grant bail, noting the gravity of the charge, but allowed the petitioner to re‑apply after seven months of custody. The bail petition was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the Arms Act when the weapon is alleged to have been recovered from his conscious possession.
- Whether the fact that the seized weapon was found in a jointly occupied house affects the bail consideration.
- Whether a clean antecedent and the length of pre‑trial custody justify bail in a serious arms offence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑BA), 26, 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- possession
- joint house
- serious offence
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2966 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Daya Kant @ Tantu Yadav, Male, aged about 35 years, Son of Lata Raghu
Nandan Yadav, Resident of village- Birpur, P.S.- Madhepur, District-
Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Madhepur P.S. Case No. 197 of 2025 instituted for the offences
punishable under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms
Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, one country made
pistol and two live cartridges have been recovered from the
conscious possession of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has
falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that country
made pistol and two live cartridges have not been recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioner but the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2966 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
recovery is from the petitioner’s house. He next submits that
several persons live in the house and the house is a joint house.
Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the
petition is in custody since 29.10.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner.
6. From perusal of the FIR, seizure list and the
impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned District
and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani, it
appears that allegation against this petitioner is specific that one
country made pistol and two cartridges have been recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioner. From perusal of
the records, it appears that on the basis of written report of the
informant, FIR has been registered under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26
and 35 of the Arms Act against the present petitioner and the
allegation of one country made pistol and two live cartridges
have been recovered from the house of the petitioner and the
petitioner was present there. Petitioner is FIR named accused,
so considering all these aspects of the case, gravity of serious
offence and the allegation levelled against him, I am not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2966 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
rejected.
8. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for
bail before the trial Court after completion of seven months in
custody.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U T
Checking your session…