Patna High Court
Kundan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to a bond and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
Kundan Yadav was arrested in connection with a shooting incident in which an informant was injured, and was charged under Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that Yadav had arranged the shooters, relying on a confessional statement of a co‑accused, Shishu Yadav, which was not mentioned in the FIR. Yadav contended that he was falsely implicated, that there was no overt act attributable to him, and that the confessional statement could not be the sole basis for the charge. The State opposed bail, highlighting Yadav’s alleged criminal antecedent of fourteen cases, though Yadav disclosed only eight. After hearing both sides, the Court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification that his criminal antecedent does not exceed eight cases.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with serious offences under the Arms Act.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused, not recorded in the FIR, can substantiate the allegation against the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent exceeding eight cases bars the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedent
- confessional statement
- regular bail
- serious offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37125 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2026 Thana- Madhusudanpur District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Kundan Yadav Son of Late Suraj Yadav Resident of Mohalla - Maheshpur,
Madhav Asthan, P.S. - Babarganj, District - Bhagalpur (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a,
26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
informant deals in real estate. While he was having tea at the
shop of Bittu Tea seller. Meanwhile, three boys arrived there.
They were identified as Mukesh Pal, Ashish Kumar and one
unknown. It is alleged that they have started firing and
informant has received one gun shot injury in his stomach.
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.37125 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
2/3
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from
perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that the allegation of filing is not
against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner has been framed in this case as he is also doing the
business of real estate and there is rivalry between the parties. It
has further been submitted that from perusal of the order of
learned trial Court it will transpire that learned trial Court has
recorded that during course of investigation, co-accused Shishu
Yadav has given his confessional statement and in confessional
statement he has stated that the petitioner has arranged the
shooters. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the story of arranging the shooters is based on confessional
statement of co-accused who is not named in the F.I.R. It has
further been submitted that there is no allegation against the
petitioner of any overt act. Petitioner is languishing in judicial
custody since 28.03.2026.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
application for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has
submitted that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of 14
cases, however he has disclosed only 8 cases in para ‘3’ of the
bail petition.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37125 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
3/3
6. Countering this, learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the informant was present in the learned trial
Court also where the petitioner has also disclosed that he is
having criminal antecedent of 8 cases.
7. 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 A.C.J.M.-VIII, Bhagalpur/concerned Court in connection
with Madhusudanpur P.S. Case No. 13 of 2026 with a condition
that while accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner, the
learned trial court shll verify the criminal antecedent of the
petitioner, if he is having criminal antecedent of more than 8
cases, his bail bond should not be accepted.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.