Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42323 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2025 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar Son of Mahesh Yadav Resident of VillageKripabigha, P.S.- Kusumbha and District- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 40752 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2025 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Yadav S/O Prahlad Yadav R/O Vill.- Kripabigha, P.s.- Kusumbha, Dist.- Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 42323 of 2025) For the Petitioner :
Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary For the Opposite Party :
Mr. Manoj Kumar (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 40752 of 2025) For the Petitioner :
Mr. Rizwanul Haque For the Opposite Party :
Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed Supplementary Affidavit in the course of the day which is kept in the record.
3. The petitioners have preferred this application for
2/4 grant of regular bail in connection with Sheikhpura P.S Case No. 50/2025 dated 16.02.2025 registered for the offence punishable u/s 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, the co-accused persons along with 2-3 unknown miscreants are alleged to have shot fire on the husband of the informant due to which he died.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioners have sprung up in the confessional statement of the co-accused, Nitish Kumar. The other co-accused person has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 59915/2025. In para. 64 of the case diary, the confessional statement of the co-accused, Nitish Kumar is mentioned in which he has stated that on the date of occurrence the coaccused, Saina Yadav stopped the motorcycle of the deceased and the co-accused, Nitesh Kumar fired on the face of the deceased, the co-accused Sanjeet Yadav fired on the deceased and the co-accused Vikash Kumar fired on the deceased, thereafter, when they found Subodh Yadav dead they came out
3/4 of the village and they escaped with Pankaj Kumar who was there with his motorcycle and they gave their weapons to Md. Sahid to hide and went to Gautam Yadav who was residing in Patna. The petitioner (Pankaj Yadav) has three antecedents and he is on bail in all the aforesaid cases whereas the petitioner (Gautam Kumar) has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner (Pankaj Yadav) is in custody since 23.03.2025 and The petitioner (Gautam Kumar) is in custody since 15.03.2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners were also involved in the alleged occurrence.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioners above-named, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Sheikhpura, in connection with Sheikhpura P.S Case No. 50/2025, with the condition:- (i). The petitioners are directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable
4/4 cause, the bail bonds of the petitioners are liable to be cancelled.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T