← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42841/2026bail granted

Kuldeep Yadav @ Jharki v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-06Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42841 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2026 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Kuldeep Yadav @ Jharki Son of Bal Kumar Yadav Resident of village - Koriyahi, Kariyayt, Police Station - Laukahi, District - Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Parmanand Prasad, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 23.04.2026 in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) of the B.N.S.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant of this case is Arbind Kumar Paswan. he has stated that on 17.02.2026 at about 10.00 P.M. the informant went to doctor to see his brother's child with his grand mother and was returning home by Apache motor cycle bearing Registration No.BR50AD7333, Chesis No.MD634BE8552D03502, Engine No.CE8DS2303531. In the mean time at Piprahi Chowk, three accused persons stopped the informant by threatening with a

2/4 pistol and snatched mobile of brand Vivo t2x, IMEI 864712064030179, SIM No.8492016063 and above motor cycle. Later the accused persons also threatened to the informant and his grand mother and fled away at NH 227 in the east direction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that petitioner was not initially named in the FIR and the name of the petitioner has transpired during the course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused person, namely, Deepak Kumar Yadav. It is next submitted that initially the petitioner was arrested in Laukaha P.S. Case No. 34 of 2026 and then he was remanded in the present case on 23.04.2026 and except the aforesaid nothing has come during the investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since 23.04.2026.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of three cases other than the present case but fairly submits that out of three cases the

3/4 petitioner is on bail in two cases and one case is pending for consideration before the court of competent law.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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, Jhanjharpur in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026, 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

4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T