Saroj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12516 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-240 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Saroj Yadav S/o Late Upendra Yadav R/o Village - Rohiyar, P.S.- Mansi, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Prakash, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 240 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B) (a), 26(2), 35 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the police had secret input that at 'Balu Ghat' of village Rohiyar, an illegal mini-gun factory is being run and from there, accused persons can be apprehended. On this input, police raided the place and three persons were apprehended. The petitioner is one amongst them and from that place, two country-made rifles with magazines and other articles for manufacturing arms were recovered.

4. 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 case. He also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12516 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026 2/2 submits that the recovery has been made from and open place. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. He further submits that the witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and the police has not complied with Section 105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 18.10.2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of one case but in that case, he has been acquitted.

6. 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, 1st Class, Khagaria in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 240 of 2025.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T