IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61370 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2024 Thana- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Shubhash Yadav @ Subhash Yadav Son of Bino Yadav @ Vinod Yadav Resident of village - Sukhasan, Ghoghsan, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Distt.- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Khushi Awadh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 7 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Simri Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 230 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections-353, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B), 25(1-B)©, 26(2), 27(2) and 35 of the Arms Act. 3. The police on secret information that notorious criminal Sadhu Ydav, to whom, a reward of Rs. One Lakh has been announced by the Government, was passing through with his associates. The police raised ambush and one Hero Honda Motorcycle without number plate was seen and when the police Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61370 of 2025(7) dt.02-02-2026 2/2 signalled to stop, the pillion rider fired two shots by AK-47 targetting the police force. The driver became successful in fleeing away and the petitioner was arrested. One AK-47 Rifle and 10 cartridges as well as country-made pistol and magazines were also recovered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He is servant of co-accused Sadhu Yadav who fled away and the petitioner was arrested. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that one AK-47, Assault Rifle, pistol and cartridges were recovered from possession of the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail and accordingly, the same is rejected. A.K.V.//- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T