Dismissed¶15

Daya Kant @ Tantu Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Arms Act – regular bail

Patna HC28 Jan 2026CR. MISC./2966/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.2966 of 2026, decided 28-01-2026 by Ramesh Chand Malviya, J. Regular bail rejected under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act in Madhepur P.S. Case No. 197 of 2025, District Madhubani. Key terms: country made pistol; two live cartridges; recovery from conscious possession; FIR-named accused; seizure list; gravity of offence; joint house; custody since 29.10.2025; impugned order dated 08.12.2025 of District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jhanjharpur; renewal of bail after seven months in custody; advocates Baleshwar Kamat (petitioner) and Nand Kishore Prasad, APP (State).

What did the court decide?

Liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the trial Court after completion of seven months in custody. ¶15

Daya Kant @ Tantu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2966 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Daya Kant @ Tantu Yadav, Male, aged about 35 years, Son of Lata Raghu Nandan Yadav, Resident of village- Birpur, P.S.- Madhepur, DistrictMadhubani.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶6

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER

¶7

2 28-01-2026

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶9

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No. 197 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

¶10

As per the prosecution case, one country made pistol and two live cartridges have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that country made pistol and two live cartridges have not been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner but the

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2966 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/3

¶13

recovery is from the petitioner’s house. He next submits that several persons live in the house and the house is a joint house. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition is in custody since 29.10.2025.

¶14

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶15

From perusal of the FIR, seizure list and the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani, it appears that allegation against this petitioner is specific that one country made pistol and two cartridges have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. From perusal of the records, it appears that on the basis of written report of the informant, FIR has been registered under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act against the present petitioner and the allegation of one country made pistol and two live cartridges have been recovered from the house of the petitioner and the petitioner was present there. Petitioner is FIR named accused, so considering all these aspects of the case, gravity of serious offence and the allegation levelled against him, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶16