Subhash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82677 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-383 Year-2024 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Subhash Yadav S/O Surat lal Yadav R/O Village-Badi Kothia, ward no. 02, P.S- Muffasil, Distt.- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No.383 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under sections 25(1-b)a/26 of the Arms Act. 3.

Earlier, the bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.24036 of 2025. The aforesaid order dated 30.04.2025 reads as under:- "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No.

383 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-b)a & 26 of the Arms Act.

3. Two country-made pistols and 12 live

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82677 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner who is in custody since 18.11.2024.

4. Considering the recovery from the possession of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

5. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

6. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail if the trial is delayed."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case even the charge has not been framed. 5.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has eight criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to review my earlier order dated 30.04.2025. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

6.

The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Begusarai is directed to ensure the framing of charge at the earliest.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T