Patna High Court
Manish Yadav @ Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Manish Yadav applied for regular bail in a criminal miscellaneous case (No.42183 of 2026) arising from a charge under Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that a pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from a co‑accused, and that Yadav's name was disclosed by the co‑accused after he escaped. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, that nothing was recovered from his possession, and that he was falsely implicated despite having three prior criminal cases. The State opposed the bail application, arguing the seriousness of the arms offences. After hearing both sides, the Court found the circumstances warranted bail and ordered the petitioner to be released on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act offences pending trial
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
Subjects
- regular bail
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- bail application
- court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42183 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-498 Year-2025 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Manish Yadav @ Manish Kumar S/o Dayaram Yadav @ Dayanand, Resident
of Village - Mahinathpur, P.S.- Rajnagar, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kant Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 30-06-2026 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 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from
the possession of co-accused Mithilesh Yadav, one country
made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered. It is
alleged that the petitioner managed to escape and his name was
disclosed by co-accused.
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.42183 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
2/2
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
nothing has been recovered from the possession of this
petitioner. He has no concern with the alleged recovery. It has
further been submitted that as the petitioner is having criminal
antecedent of three cases, he has been framed in this case. He is
languishing in judicial custody since 06.12.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the application for bail.
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 C.J.M.,
Madhubani in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 498 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.