Saurabh Kumar Yadav @ Sorabh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1615 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-354 Year-2024 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Saurabh Kumar Yadav @ Sorabh Kumar Yadav S/O Dinesh Yadav R/o Village - Bhorha, Ward No. 12, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Madan Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Anamul Haque, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 11-04-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case no.354 of 2024 registered under sections 103(1) and 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that three accused persons resorted to firing upon him as a result of which the informant stopped his Tata Pick up vehicle. Two out of the three accused on the motorcycle came and on the point of firearm took away Rs.2 lacs from their possession. They shot his son in the head who on being taken to the doctor was declared dead. The accused escaped on the motorcycle. The informant claims that he can identify the accused on seeing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1615 of 2025(3) dt.11-04-2025 2/3 them again.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered against unknown. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the case in course of investigation. The name of Saroj Yadav transpired in course of investigation on the statement of a spy and it is further stated that on examining the call records of the mobile of Saroj Yadav, it transpired that he had talked with the petitioner. Besides this, learned counsel submits that the prosecution is mainly relying on the confessional statement of the petitioner made before police. There are no eye witness to the occurrence and no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and inspite of being in custody since 16.10.2024, he has not been put on T.I. parade and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsels submit that on examining the call records of Saroj Yadav, it transpired that this is a big gang of which the petitioner is an active member and he was involved in the occurrence.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1615 of 2025(3) dt.11-04-2025 3/3 that has transpired in course of investigation, there being no eye witness to the occurrence and inspite of having remained in custody for more than 5 months the petitioner not having been put on T.I. parade and chargesheet having been submitted in the case, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case no.354 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Araria.
(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T