Patna High Court
Aryan Raj @ Chhotu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner with conditions, after framing of charge, if not already done.
Summary
The petitioner, Aryan Raj, sought bail in a case under Sections 25(1)-b,a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, alleging false implication and lack of incriminating material in his possession. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co‑accused extorted money from a police informant and fired at him, leading to the recovery of arms. The petitioner argued that the arms were kept by a friend, he had been in custody since 15‑06‑2025, and there was no compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed bail. Considering the facts, the period of custody, and the absence of strong evidential material, the court inclined to grant bail subject to a cash bond and sureties, and imposed conditions of appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and a family member as a bailor.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the Arms Act offences.
- Whether the lack of compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the presence of prior criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the alleged extortion affect bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1)-a, 25(1)-b, 26, 35
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- Section 103
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- extortion
- surety
- criminal antecedents
- evidence tampering
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77035 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya
======================================================
Aryan Raj @ Chhotu Yadav Son of Shankar Yadav Vill -Bairagi, Ward No 10,
PS- Delha, Dist -Gaya ji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Priya Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State. Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Delha
P.S. Case No. 134 of 2025, instituted for the offences under
Sections 25(1)-b,a 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that informant received
information that accused of Delha P.S. Case No. 112 of 2025
was roaming near Bahera Bigha. Thereafter, informant along
with other Police personnel reached there and apprehended the
petitioner. The petitioner disclosed that informant of Delha P.S.
Case No. 112 of 2025 was constructing sewage and the
petitioner and co-accused persons have demanded extortion
money from him and when he refused then they fired, which hit
on his door.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77035 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Charge-Sheet has been submitted in this case. He further
submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submitted
that petitioner has not kept the said arms at the place of recovery
rather his friend has kept the same. It has been submitted on
behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since
15.06.2025 and has six criminal antecedents. There is no
compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, as also the period of custody undergone by the
petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing
of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 15,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Delha P.S. Case No.
134 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77035 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of
the family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the prosecution will have liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.
(III) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
or the witnesses during the trial.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…