Patna High Court
Raja YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Bail was granted because there was no likelihood of the petitioner fleeing, tampering with evidence, or misusing liberty, despite the procedural lapse and his criminal history.
Summary
Petitioner Raja Yadav was arrested on 26 April 2025 after police recovered a country-made pistol and live cartridges from him during a vehicle check, and he allegedly planned a loot of maize. He applied for bail, claiming innocence, lack of independent witnesses, and non‑compliance with Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (Suppression) Act, 2023, which mandates audio‑video recording of searches. The State opposed bail, citing his prior involvement in 14 cases and arguing that his criminal history warranted denial. The Court noted that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences under the Arms Act is seven years, the investigation is complete, there is no risk of witness tampering or flight, and procedural lapses do not outweigh the bail considerations. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, directing release on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and imposing standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 25(1‑b)/a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act despite alleged procedural violations under Section 105 of the BNSS, 2023.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal history of 14 cases justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)/a, 26, 35
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- Section 105 BNSS
- criminal history
- procedural compliance
- non‑bailable offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91255 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2025 Thana- RUPAULI District- Purnia
======================================================
Raja Yadav S/o- Harinandan Yadav @ Budhan Yadav Vill- Shyam, Ward no-
10, P.S- Gawalpara, Distt- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Kumari Pallavi
Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 1. By means of this bail application, petitioner, who is
involved in connection with Rupauli P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025
registered for the offences under Sections 25(1-b)/a, 26,35 of the
Arms Act seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of
trial.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated
are that on the basis of self statement of informant Abhishekh
Kumar, S.H.O., Rupauli Police Station, this case was registered
stating inter alia that on 26.04.2025 at about 05:30 a.m., he
along with other members of police patrolling team have moved
out for implementing a crime control drive. During vehicle
checking drive, they saw that two persons coming on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91255 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/6
motorcycle from Mohanpur towards Rupauli but on giving
signal to stop, they started escaping. The police team chased and
apprehended one of them whereas another escaped away. The
person apprehend has disclosed his name as Raja Yadav
(petitioner) and on his personal search, a country made pistol
and live cartridges were recovered. On being interrogated, Raja
Yadav (petitioner) has disclosed the name of his accomplice as
Ganesh Rishideo @ Dhatal @ Baba ji and also disclosed that
they were planning to commit loot of maize.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case due to ulterior motive. It is further argued that there is no
independent public witness of recovery of pistol and live
cartridges shown by the police from the possession of the
petitioner. Much emphasis have been given by contending that
mandatory provisions of Section 105 of the BNSS have not been
complied with by the police which provides the recording of
search and seizure through audio-video electronic means. The
said procedure has not been done in the present case. Learned
counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner has
been earlier falsely implicated in 14 cases by the police and on
the basis of said cases, bail application of the petitioner has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91255 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/6
rejected. In this regard, it is pointed out that out of 14 cases, in 8
cases, petitioner is on bail. Averments in this regard have been
mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. It is also
submitted that in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P.
reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648, bail of the accused cannot be
rejected in such matters on the ground of his criminal history.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of
the allegations made against the petitioner have also been placed
forth before the Court. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner is
languishing in jail since 26.04.2025 and in case he is released on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the
trial.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R.
by contending that since petitioner has criminal history of 14
cases, therefore his bail application is liable to be rejected but he
could not dispute that the mandatory provisions of Section 105
of the BNSS, 2023 has not been complied.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record, I find that maximum
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91255 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/6
sentence for the alleged offence is up to 7 years. The
investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been
submitted against the petitioner. Now there is no possibility of
tampering with the witnesses. Due to heavy docket of the cases,
the possibility of conclusion of trial of the petitioner in near
future is very bleak. There is no chance of the petitioner, of
fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the
prosecution evidence. As on date there is no material on record
to presume that there is danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, without entering into merit of the
case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence,
severity of punishment, complicity of the petitioner,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties made at the
bar and reasons as noted above, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner is liable to be released on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner
stands allowed.
9. Let the petitioner namely, Raja Yadav be released on
bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91255 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
5/6
the following conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the expeditious
disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the Court unless
inevitable. Two consecutive default in putting appearance shall
lead to an action towards cancellation of the bail bond of the
petitioner.
(ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
involve in any criminal activity after being released on bail.
(iv) In case, at any stage it is found that the petitioner has
disclosed his incomplete criminal history before this Court,
learned Court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner
after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the
same.
(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the Court below
that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned
Court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91255 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
6/6
10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited
to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will
in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the
case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected
by anything said in this order.
11. The trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude
the trial of the petitioner expeditiously without granting
unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
(Sanjay Kumar Singh , J)
Saif/-
U T
Checking your session…