Patna High Court

Mohan Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav @Sunil kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 10 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court held that bail may be granted as the petitioner is not the principal accused and procedural lapses in the seizure justify release on bond.

Summary

Mohan Kumar Yadav applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, where 39 live cartridges were seized from his and his father’s joint house. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR primarily implicated his father, who is the main accused in a related case, and that the police failed to comply with Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. during the seizure. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s prior criminal case. After hearing both sides, the court noted the procedural irregularities and the petitioner’s limited role, and decided to grant bail. The bail was conditioned on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, to be approved by the learned ACJM‑II, Jhanjharpur.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the Arms Act for possession of live cartridges.
Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. during seizure affects bail eligibility.
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent precludes bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
B.N.S.S. — s. 105

Subjects

bail
Arms Act
seizure
procedural lapse
criminal antecedent
joint house
sureties

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6702 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-415 Year-2025 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Mohan Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav @Sunil kumar Yadav, S/o- Shiv Kumar
                 Yadav, R/o village - Hariyari , P.s- Phulparas , District - Madhubani

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 415 of 2025 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 joint house of the petitioner and his father, altogether 39 live

                   cartridges were recovered.

                                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

                   case. From perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is clear that there is

                   allegation against the father of the petitioner of making firing on
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6702 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       Mahesh Yadav in Phulparas P.S. Case No. 413 of 2025. It has

                       further been submitted that the house is joint one and the father

                       is main accused in Phulparas P.S. Case No. 413 of 2025. It has

                       also been submitted that nothing has been recovered from his

                       possession. The witnesses of the seizure list are police

                       personnel. Police has not complied Section 105 of the B.N.S.S.

                       while making the seizure. Petitioner is languishing in judicial

                       custody since 01.10.2025.

                                    5. Learned APP appearing for the State has

                       vehemently opposed the application for bail has submitted that

                       petitioner is having criminal antecedent of one case.

                                    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

                       A.C.J.M.-II, Jhanjharpur in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case

                       No. 415 of 2025.


                                                          (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…