Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rajeev Singh @ Raju Singh @ RajuversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner, directing release upon furnishing a bail bond with two sureties.

Summary

Petitioner Rajeev Singh was arrested in connection with a case under several provisions of the Arms Act, where the prosecution alleged that 58 live cartridges were recovered from his possession. The petitioner contended that the seizure list was prepared collectively for all three accused, no separate list existed for him, and the police failed to comply with Section 105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. He also pointed out that a co-accused, Hannan, had previously been granted bail in a similar case and that he had been in judicial custody since 9 July 2025. The State opposed the bail application. After hearing both sides, the court found merit in the petitioner's arguments and ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Arms Act charges given the alleged procedural lapses in seizure and his prolonged custody.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Arms Act
  • seizure procedure
  • Section 105 BNSS
  • judicial custody
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87587 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJAULI District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Rajeev Singh @ Raju Singh @ Raju S/O Late Yadu Nandan Singh R/O
                 Village - Behta, Ward No.- 2, P.S - Khajauli, District- Madhubani
                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                          ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   25-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-a),

                   25(1-b)(a), 25(1-a), 25(1-aa), 25(6)(7)(8), 26 and 29 of the Arms

                   Act.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from

                   possession of this petitioner altogether 58 live cartridges were

                   recovered.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   from perusal of the seizure list it will transpire that no separate

                   seizure list was prepared regarding this petitioner, rather seizure

                   list was prepared of all three accused persons collectively. It has

                   further been submitted that similarly situated co-accused Md.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87587 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      Hannan @ Hannam has been granted bail by this Court vide Cr.

                      Misc. No. 86405 of 2025. It has further been submitted that

                      nothing has been recovered from the possession of this

                      petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

                      the witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and police

                      has not complied Section 105 of the BNSS while making

                      seizure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

                      petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 09.07.2025.

                                   5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                      the bail.

                                   6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is

                      inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                      petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with

                      Khajauli P.S. Case No. 134 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of

                      Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                      each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.-1st Class, Madhubani.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.