Patna High Court
Vishal Kumar Yadav @ Vishal Kumar @ RockyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to a bail bond, sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
Vishal Kumar Yadav applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case involving a viral video showing firearms, alleged under Section 351(2) of the Bihar Narcotic (B.N.S.) Act, Sections 25(9), 7 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 66D of the IT Act. The prosecution’s case was based on an informant’s tip and a chain of discoveries that eventually named the petitioner, although no weapons were recovered from his residence. The petitioner argued that he has a clean record and that the allegations are false, citing a similar anticipatory bail order granted to co‑accused Rahul Kumar. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties of the same amount, and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., to be confirmed by the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the Arms Act, IT Act and B.N.S. Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s case is analogous to the earlier anticipatory bail granted to co‑accused Rahul Kumar.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(9), 27, 7
- Information Technology Act — s. 66D
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- IT Act
- false implication
- viral video
- bail bond
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87889 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2025 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna
======================================================
Vishal Kumar Yadav @ Vishal Kumar @ Rocky Son of Sadan Yadav Resident
of village- Maranchi P.s - Punpun Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Section 351(2) of B.N.S.,
2023, Sections 25(9), 7 and 27 of the Arms Act as well as
Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that she came to know that viral video with arms is being
put on social media to create fear. Accordingly, on inquiry,
Chowkidar disclosed the name of the accused as Kriti Kiran
Yadav who was seen with arms in the video. Thereafter, house
of Kriti was searched who was apprehended and from his house,
mobiles were recovered. On analysing the mobile, it was found
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87889 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
that there was video of accused persons seeing firing and Kriti
disclosed the names of the accused as Rahul and Raju and
disclosed that weapon was with Raju. Accordingly, house of
Raju was raided who disclosed that Sanjeet and Rahul had made
the video at the farm of Manoj and also disclosed that weapon is
with Rahul and petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that house of petitioner was
raided but then no arms and ammunition was found. It is further
submitted that similarly situated co-accused Rahul Kumar had
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing
Criminal Miscellaneous No.70039 of 2025 and the same came
to be allowed by an order dated 08.10.2025 passed by a learned
Coordinate Bench. It is further submitted that case of the
petitioner, if not akin, is similar to the case of Rahul.
5. Learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87889 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail 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 trial court where the case is
pending/Successor Court in connection with Punpun Thana P.S.
Case No.188 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…