Dhanji Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dhanji Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhojpur at Ara, in connection with Bahoranpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, booked for offences under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act in Bahoranpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026, should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhojpur at Ara, in connection with Bahoranpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted (Patna High Court, 08-07-2026, Ashok Kumar Pandey, J). Dhanji Yadav, arraigned under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act in Bahoranpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026 (District Bhojpur), sought bail. The prosecution case was that arms and ammunition concealed in the agricultural field of one Munna Yadav were recovered: one rifle, one pistol, one country-made pistol, twelve live cartridges and seven empty cartridges. Counsel for the petitioner submitted he was innocent and falsely implicated; that per the seizure list any recovery was from Munna Yadav's field and nothing was recovered from the petitioner's possession; that the seizure witnesses were police personnel and Section 105 BNSS was not complied with; and that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent and was in judicial custody since 21.04.2026. The APP opposed. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court enlarged the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhojpur at Ara.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44325 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2026 Thana- Bahoranpur District- Bhojpur

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

Dhanji Yadav Son of Satyanarayan Yadav @ Sadhu Yadav Resident of Village- Pursushotampur, P.S.- Bhoranpur, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

2 08-07-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the police had secret information that the petitioner had kept illegal arms and ammunition concealed in the agricultural field of one Munna Yadav. It is further alleged that from the field of Munna Yadav, one rifle, one pistol, one country-made pistol, twelve live cartridges, and seven empty cartridges were recovered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44325 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 2/2

case. He also submits that from perusal of the seizure list, it is clear that the recovery, if any, has been made from the field of Munna Yadav. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and the police have not complied with Section 105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. Moreover, a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 21.04.2026.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

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 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Bahoranpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

Sudhanshu/-

U T