Patna High Court
Raja Kumar Yadav @ Shivam Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the conditions imposed by the court.
Summary
The petitioner, Raja Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 25(1‑a) and 25(9) of the Arms Act, where the prosecution alleged that a pistol used by a boy named Durgesh Yadav was ultimately returned to him. The prosecution’s case was based on a video of the boy firing and a confessional statement linking the weapon to the petitioner through an intermediary, Mithilesh Kumar. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, no weapon was recovered from his possession or residence, and he has a clean criminal record. The State opposed the bail application, but the court examined the facts, the lack of material evidence, and the petitioner’s antecedents. The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, imposing conditions such as surety bonds, presence in court, and verification of criminal antecedents. The order clarified that any observations made would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged offences under the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-a), 25(9)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8312 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2025 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Raja Kumar Yadav @ Shivam Kumar Yadav S/o Ramayan Yadav Resident of
Village- Mathiya, P.S.- Lauriya, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Raushan Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Lauriya P.S. Case No. 440 of 2025 registered for the offences
under Sections 25(1-a) and 25(9) of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that a video of a young boy firing in air was made viral.
It is further alleged that an information was received that the
boy which was firing was one Durgesh Yadav and the said
Durgesh Yadav was apprehended, who disclosed the name of
one Mithilesh Kumar, who has provided him with the pistol and
he has alleged that he has returned the pistol to Raja Kumar
Yadav @ Shivam Kumar Yadav (petitioner).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8312 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no such
revolver has been recovered from his conscious possession. It
has further been submitted that in pursuance to the confessional
statement of the Durgesh Yadav, the police has conducted a raid
in the house of the petitioner and no incriminating article has
been recovered from the house of the petitioner. It has next been
submitted that the petitioner being an active member of Durga
Puja Samiti had been opposing the actions of Durgesh Yadav
and only to settle personal score, the petitioner has falsely been
implicated in this case. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioner carries clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8312 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
No. 440 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below
shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8312 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…