Patna High Court
Jogendra Pandit @ Yogendra PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied.
Summary
Jogendra Pandit sought anticipatory bail after learning that a raid on co-accused Ramnath Yadav's house recovered illegal arms and Yadav's confessional statement implicated Pandit as an associate. The petitioner argued he was not named in the FIR, no incriminating article was found in his possession, and he was innocent. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the only link to Pandit was the co-accused's confession and that Pandit has two prior criminal convictions. The court examined the nature of the allegations under the Arms Act and the petitioner’s antecedents. Considering the reliance on a co-accused’s statement and the petitioner’s criminal record, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the sole evidence against the petitioner is a co-accused's confessional statement.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail under the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 35
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedents
- illegal arms
- co-accused
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85108 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2025 Thana- KHIRI MORE District- Patna
======================================================
Jogendra Pandit @ Yogendra Pandit Son of Late Agnu Pandit Resident of
Village- Kodihra, P.S.- Khirimore, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a,
26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, acting on a tip off, a raid
was conducted and illegal arms and ammunition were recovered
from the house of co-accused Ramnath Yadav who disclosed the
name of this petitioner as his associate.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R..
Name of petitioner transpired in this case merely on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused Ramnath Yadav from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85108 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
2/2
whose possession, illegal arms and ammunition were recovered.
No incriminating article has been recovered from possession of
this petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
and submitted that name of petitioner transpired on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused Ramnath Yadav from
whose possession, illegal arms and ammunition were recovered.
Petitioner has got two criminal antecedents.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, nature of accusation and criminal antecedents of the
petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…