Patna High Court
Santosh Yadav @ SilewaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail must be granted as the co‑accused’s statement lacks evidentiary value and no material has been recovered from the petitioner.
Summary
Santosh Yadav applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a Pandarak police case for alleged possession of illegal arms under Sections 61(2) of the BNS and 25(1‑B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act. The police raid recovered weapons from a co‑accused, Dilip Kumar, who, during interrogation, named Yadav as one of the four absconding persons. No weapons or any other incriminating material were found on Yadav’s person. Yadav’s counsel argued that Dilip Kumar’s statement is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and that there is no direct evidence against him. The court agreed, noting the lack of material possession and the statutory exclusion of a co‑accused’s confession, and therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- The admissibility of a co‑accused’s statement implicating the petitioner under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in the absence of any seized weapon or direct evidence against the petitioner.
- The applicability of Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- BNS — s. 61(2)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 25, 26
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- co‑accused testimony
- evidentiary value
- Indian Evidence Act
- Arms Act
- Section 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9028 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2025 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna
======================================================
Santosh Yadav @ Silewa Son of Ramnandan Yadav R/o Village - Chintaman
Chak, Police Station - Pandarak, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Pandarak P.S. Case No.168 of 2025 registered for the
offence under Sections 61(2) of the BNS and 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
Arms Act.
3. Prosecution case in short is that, the police team
conducted a raid at about 08:40 A.M., when the informant and
other police personnel reached near a tree about 100 meters east
of Chintamani village, they saw about five persons sitting there.
On seeing the police vehicle, they stood up and tried to flee.
With the help of police force, one person was apprehended,
while the remaining four persons escaped from the spot. On
inquiry, the apprehended person disclosed his name as Dilip
Kumar, aged about 20 years, son of Suresh Yadav, resident of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9028 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
Hamjapur village, Police Station Khusrupur, District Patna.
During interrogation, as his accomplices were not present, a
personal search of the apprehended person was conducted. From
his possession two country-made pistol, two live cartridges and
a mobile of reliance company were recovered Thereafter, the
apprehended person was interrogated, during which he disclosed
the names of the four absconding persons as Sagar Yadav,
Santosh Yadav @ Silwa (Petitioner), Bablu Chauhan and Jitu
Chauhan all are residents of Chintamani village, Police Station
Fatuha, District Patna. They had assembled together with the
intention of committing crime and robbery in the village and
surrounding areas. Upon search of the place where weapons
were kept, three country-made pistols and 16 live cartridges and
one Splendor motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-05-NV-
3564 were recovered. A seizure list was prepared accordingly,
and all items were duly seized. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and he has
falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that on the statement of the co-
accused, Dilip Kumar name of the petitioner has come up and
there is no recovery from the conscious possession of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9028 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
statement of co-accused Dilip Kumar has no evidentiary value
in the eyes of law being hit by Section 25 and 26 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
5. The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Upon police raid two countrymade pistol, two live
cartridges and a mobile of reliance company was recovered
from the possession of co-accused, Dilip Kumar. It is on the
statement of the co-accused, Dilip Kumar that the name of the
petitioner has come up. Since the petitioner is alleged to have
escaped from the place of occurrence, therefore, nothing was
recovered from his conscious physical possession. Statement
made by co-accused does not carry evidentiary value, and
therefore, under these circumstance this Court is inclined to
grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner above named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of
Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Ist,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9028 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
Barh, Patna in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No.168 of
2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2)
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other
following conditions:
(i) the petitioner shall co-operate in the
investigation/trial.
(ii) the learned Court would, however, verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case 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, it is expected that the verification process
would be done expeditiously without causing any delay.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U T
Checking your session…