Patna High Court
Pradeep YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court denied the petition for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Pradeep Yadav, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 109 of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging he shot an informant and caused firearm injury. The petitioner claimed innocence and alleged false implication, while the State contended that the FIR specifically accused him of the firearm offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought anticipatory bail, whereas the State’s counsel opposed it, emphasizing the specific and direct nature of the accusation. After considering the gravity of the alleged offence and the seriousness of the charges, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioner remains liable to be arrested in connection with the FIR.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the allegations of Section 109 B.N.S. and Section 27 Arms Act
- Whether the specific and direct nature of the accusation and the gravity of the offence justify denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 27 Arms Act
- firearm injury
- bail rejection
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5579 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- BIND District- Nalanda
======================================================
Pradeep Yadav S/o- Rajkishore Yadav R/v- Rampur Bigha Po- Badi Malwan
Ps- Bind Dist- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 31-03-2026 Heard Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned
APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the
B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner shot the informant due to which he sustained fire arm
injury.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case with ulterior motive. Petitioner claims clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5579 of 2026(3) dt.31-03-2026
2/2
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
and there is specific accusation that he caused fire arm injury to
the informant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…