Anil Yadav @ Sadam @ Saddam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20583 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2020 Thana- KHIJARSARAI District- Gaya ====================================================== Anil Yadav @ Sadam @ Saddam S/O Late Ramlakhan Prasad R/O VillageDharampur, P.S- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2026 Heard Mr.Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 28.12.2024 in connection with S.Tr.No.131/2025 arising out of Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 302/2020, F.I.R. dated 04.10.2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and Sections 16,18,20 of U.A.P. Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner along with other accused persons were found in suspicious condition and on search, a white plastic bag containing 25 pieces explosive substance has been recovered.
2/4
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused person, namely, Jitendra Kumar and except the confessional statement of co-accused person, no other cogent material has come during investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and charge has been framed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons on 31.12.2024 and out of eight chargesheet witnesses, five witnesses have been examined but not a single witness has stated anything about the petitioner and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries seven more cases other than the present one but he fairly submits that out of seven cases, the petitioner is on bail in four cases, and rest three cases are pending for consideration before the competent court of law, as mentioned in para-3 of
3/4 the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-Xth, Gaya Jee in connection with S.Tr.No.131/2025 arising out of Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 302/2020, with 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her 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
4/4 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) Nitesh/- U T