Patna High Court

Amarjeet YadavversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

Amarjeet Yadav sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, where police claimed to have recovered illegal arms, ammunition, cash and liquor. The petitioner argued that his name was mentioned only in a co‑accused's confessional statement, which he claimed has no evidentiary value, and that no weapon was found in his possession. He also highlighted a prior criminal antecedent and the alleged non‑compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s similar prior offence. The Court, considering the antecedent and the nature of the allegations, declined to grant anticipatory bail, but allowed the petitioner to apply for regular bail if he surrenders within six weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act offences.
Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused can form a basis for anticipatory bail.
Whether the prior criminal antecedent and non‑compliance of Section 103 BN S 2023 preclude anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Arms Act
criminal antecedent
confessional statement
Section 103
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7772 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-370 Year-2025 Thana- PARSABAZAR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Amarjeet Yadav S/o- Anand Kumar Yadav @ Nanda Yadav Mohalla- Near
                 Gandhi Murti PS- Beur Dist- Patna
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP
                 ======================================================
                 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 Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 370 of 2025 instituted for the

                   offences under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

                               3. Prosecution case, in short is that, during night

                   patrolling, the police allegedly conducted search and seizure

                   operations and recovered illicit arms, ammunition, cash, and

                   liquor from premises connected with the accused persons.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The

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

                   confessional statement of co-accused Abhishek Kumar, which

                   has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. No incriminating
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7772 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the

                     petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has

                     got no concern with the recovered arms and ammunitions. It

                     has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner

                     has one criminal antecedent. There is no compliance of Section

                     103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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

                     opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that

                     petitioner bears one criminal antecedent of similar nature.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case as also petitioner having one criminal antecedent of

                     similar nature, this Court is 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 and prays for

                     regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit by

                     the learned court below, without being prejudiced by this order.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…