Patna High Court
Nitesh Yadav @ Nishu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties and conditions of personal appearance.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitesh Yadav, sought bail in a case registered under sections 25(1‑B)a and 35 of the Arms Act after a pistol and cartridge were recovered from his house. He alleged that the recovery was false and that he was implicated due to a land dispute with agnates. He had been in custody since 18‑08‑2025 and a charge‑sheet had already been filed. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the petitioner’s lack of prior similar criminal antecedents and the circumstances of his detention. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, one of whom must be a close relative, and imposed conditions of personal appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case under sections 25(1‑B)a and 35 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the alleged false recovery and land‑dispute motive affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- section 25(1‑B)a
- section 35
- false implication
- land dispute
- pre‑trial detention
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78708 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2025 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas
======================================================
Nitesh Yadav @ Nishu Yadav Son of Veer Kunwar Singh R/O Village -
Pevandi,P.S - Chenari, District - Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh,Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the
petitioner in connection with Chenari P.S. Case no.343 of 2025
registered under sections 25(1-B)a and 35 of Arms Act.
3. There is a recovery of one country made pistol and
one cartridge from the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case of showing
false recovery of one country-made pistol and one cartridge
from the house of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the
petitioner was not arrested at the spot and he has been
implicated only on account of land dispute between agnates.
The petitioner is in custody since 18.08.2025 and charge-sheet
has been submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78708 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that
petitioner is in custody since 18.08.2025 and charge-sheet has
been submitted in the case and there is no criminal antecedent of
similar nature, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in
connection with Chenari P.S. Case no.343 of 2025 on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Court concerned where the case is pending/successor Court,
subject to the following conditions:-
(I) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be the
family member/close relative of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
the learned trial Court on each date and shall cooperate in the
trial. In case the petitioner is absent on the two consecutive
dates without sufficient reasons, the learned trial Court would be
at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…