Kundan Yadav @ Brahmdeo Yadav @ Kundan Jee @ Sahdeo Jee @ Surendra Jee v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11638 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2016 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Kundan Yadav @ Brahmdeo Yadav @ Kundan Jee @ Sahdeo Jee @ Surendra Jee S/O Late Ramchandra Yadav Resident Of Village- Chak Adauria, P.S.- Manatu, District- Palamu, State- Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2026 Heard Md. Javed Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ahmad Ali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 09.03.2021 in connection with Roshanganj (Banke Bazar) P.S. Case No. 117 of 2016, F.I.R. dated 03.09.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 121(A), 122, 124(A), 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3,4,5 of Explosive Substance Act and 27 of Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A and Section 13, 16, 18 and 20 of U.A. P.A Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected twice vide order dated 01.02.2023 and 08.12.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 30683 of 2022 and Cr. Misc. No. 68505 of 2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11638 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026 2/3
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 it appears from the FIR that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused on the basis of disclosure made by local people. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.03.2021 i.e. for more than five years and trial is not in progress.
5. Vide order dated 25.02.2026 a report was called with regard to stage of the trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 18.03.2026 reveals that the case record has been committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gaya on 18.03.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner carries fifteen criminal antecedents in which he is on bail in all cases.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, report of the trial court as well as period of custody, 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 S.D.J.M.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11638 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026 3/3 Sherghati, Gaya in connection with Roshanganj (Banke Bazar) P.S. Case No. 117 of 2016, subject to the following conditions:- 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T