Surendra Kumar Yadav @ Surendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17123 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2025 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Surendra Kumar Yadav @ Surendra Yadav S/o Nageshwar Yadav R/o Village - Yogiya Tiwari Tola, P.S - Ladaniya, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 08-06-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP for the State, through virtual mode.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 276 of 2025 registered under Sections 76, 79, 308(1), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that all the F.I.R named accused persons tried to establish physical relation with the informant, also made the video and viraled it.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the outset, that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and although the F.I.R is an exhaustive document, naming the other accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17123 of 2026(2) dt.08-06-2026 2/3 persons with main allegation being attributed to one Rakesh Kumar Yadav and assistance was provided by the other accused persons, namely, Kuldeep Singh and Sonu Chaudhary. The name of the petitioner subsequently taken by the informant/victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, stating therein that the petitioner was also involved with the other accused persons in recording the video. It is further submitted that the incident took place 20 to 25 days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R and the F.I.R was lodged by the victim only after the video was already made viral. The petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2025 and he undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State on the ground that the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the name of the petitioner was not initially taken in the F.I.R and his name has transpired specifically with allegation of assistance in the crime, coupled with the fact that the case of the petitioner does not stand on similar footing with the other co-accused persons, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17123 of 2026(2) dt.08-06-2026 3/3 connection with Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 276 of 2025, 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 Court concerned where the case is pending/successor Court, subject to the following conditions:- (I) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be the family member/close relative of the petitioner. (II) The petitioner shall remain physically present in the learned trial Court on each date and shall cooperate in the trial. In case the petitioner is absent on the two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T