PINTU YADAV vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 168/2026

Case under Arms Act Section 25(1-B)A,26. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 07th April 2026.

Regular Bail

CNR: BRSU010025292026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

2445/2026

Filing Date

09-03-2026

Registration No

168/2026

Registration Date

09-03-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

11-District and Additional Sessions Judge-III

Decision Date

07th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

151

Police Station

NIRMALI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Arms Act Section 25(1-B)A,26

Petitioner(s)

PINTU YADAV

Adv. UNKNOWN

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY

Hearing History

Judge: 11-District and Additional Sessions Judge-III

07-04-2026

Disposed

24-03-2026

HEARING

23-03-2026

HEARING

12-03-2026

HEARING

10-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

07-04-2026
Copy of order

Summary The court granted bail to the accused Pintu Yadav Urf Pakaj Kumar in FIR No. 151/2025 under sections 25(1-B), 26, and 35 of the Arms Act, holding that the present case is a duplicate proceeding of an earlier FIR No. 150/2025 for which the accused had already been granted bail on 07.03.2026. The court found that the accused was in judicial custody at the time of the alleged recovery, no incriminating weapon was recovered from his possession, and the recovery was made on the co-accused's statement, not the accused's, thereby violating his fundamental rights. The court ordered the accused's release on bail with two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each and imposed a condition that he shall not influence witnesses or interfere with the case proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court granted bail to the accused Pintu Yadav Urf Pakaj Kumar in FIR No. 151/2025 under sections 25(1-B), 26, and 35 of the Arms Act, holding that the present case is a duplicate proceeding of an earlier FIR No. 150/2025 for which the accused had already been granted bail on 07.03.2026. The court found that the accused was in judicial custody at the time of the alleged recovery, no incriminating weapon was recovered from his possession, and the recovery was made on the co-accused's statement, not the accused's, thereby violating his fundamental rights. The court ordered the accused's release on bail with two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each and imposed a condition that he shall not influence witnesses or interfere with the case proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Div. Supaul All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case