Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8975 (PAT)

Sachin Kumar Yadav @ Sachin Kumar v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./22643/2026 · 2026-04-07

Rajesh Kumar Verma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22643 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan ====================================================== Sachin Kumar Yadav @ Sachin Kumar S/o- Lallan Yadav @ Lalan Yadav Resident of Village - Katwar, P.S. - Raghunathpur, District - Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 07-04-2026 Heard Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 16.01.2026 in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 293 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 27.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 3. According to prosecution case, it is alleged that when the informant along with his son were at their shop then around 12.05 PM, six unknown miscreants entered the shop and committed loot of cash and ornaments on the point of pistol. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired during investigation on the basis of confessional Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22643 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026 2/3 statement of co-accused, namely, Vikki Baitha and except the confessional statement of co-accused, no other cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. It appears from the seizure list that nothing incriminating articles have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner rather alleged articles have been recovered from co-accused, namely, Ankit Kumar Kushwaha and Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Mantu Singh and similarly situated co- accused person, namely, Sonu Baitha has been granted the privilege of bail by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 22326 of 2026 and the petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2026 . 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matter. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Siwan in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 293 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22643 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026 3/3 i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification. Suruchi/- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T