Patna High Court

Bittu Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 4 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioner.

Summary

Bittu Kumar Yadav sought anticipatory bail in a case (PS No.452/2025) alleging offences under Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution claimed that police received secret information about a planned dacoity, seized a pistol and live cartridges, and that the petitioner was named by co‑accused who escaped. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that no specific overt act was alleged against him, and that he has no criminal antecedent. The State opposed bail, arguing the petitioner was likely to abscond. Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra held that the nature and gravity of the offences made the case unsuitable for anticipatory bail and therefore rejected the petition, while allowing the petitioner to apply for regular bail if he surrenders within six weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged dacoity and arms offences
Whether the allegations against the petitioner constitute sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 310(4), 310(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
dacoity
arms possession
false implication
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6724 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-452 Year-2025 Thana- MAHARAJGANJ District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Bittu Kumar Yadav S/o Lal Babu Yadav R/o Village- Mahuwari, P.S-
                 Maharajganj, Dist- Siwan.
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                             Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Raj Kishor Singh, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 452 of 2025, instituted for the

                   offences under Sections 310(4), 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms

                   Act.

                               3. Prosecution case, in short, is that Police received

                   secret information that petitioner along with other accused

                   persons are preparing to commit dacoity. In the meanwhile,

                   Police personnel reached there and apprehended some

                   miscreants. On search, country made pistol and live cartridges

                   were seized.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6724 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of

                     inimical terms with co-accused. Learned counsel for the

                     petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has

                     been made against the petitioner. No specific overt act is alleged

                     against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the

                     petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

                                 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                     opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. The

                     apprehended persons disclosed the name of petitioner, who

                     managed to escape from the place of occurrence.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case, nature and gravity of offences, in my view, this is

                     not a fit case for anticipatory bail, I am not inclined to grant

                     anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                  7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

                     bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

                                  8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the

                     learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and

                     prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own

                     merit without being prejudiced by this order.


                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…