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
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
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
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 24-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 23-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts