Amarendar Yadav @ Amrendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43640 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2024 Thana- BELDOUR District- Khagaria ====================================================== Amarendar Yadav @ Amrendra Kumar Yadav Son of Anil Yadav Resident of Village- Dadhi, P.S.- Beldaur, Distt.- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Matloob Rab ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Beldaur P.S. Case No. 440 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, on the basis of secret information, one country made musket and five live cartridges were recovered from the heap of straw, adjacent to the house of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. He further submits that petitioner has no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43640 of 2025(3) dt.03-11-2025 2/2 concern with the seized arms. The alleged recovery has been made outside the house of the petitioner and petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged recovery. He further submits that petitioner bears criminal antecedent of six cases, out of which in five cases, he is on bail.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is alleged recovery of one country made musket and five live cartridges and hence, petitioner cannot escape from the allegation of said recovery. Apart from that, petitioner bears criminal antecedent of six cases and hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, keeping in view criminal antecedent of the petitioner as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) shahzad/- U T