Dhanji Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

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 08-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

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.

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

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, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Bahoranpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026.

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