Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61594 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2025 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Dhanik Lal Yadav Resident of Village- Udhawa (Udhawa Bara), P.S.- Laukaha, DistrictMadhubani 2.

Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Sri Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav R/o Vill- Udhawa (Udhawa Bara), P.S.- Laukaha, Distt- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Manish Kumar No 13, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-12-2025 Heard Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 66 of 2025 dated 03.05.2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 331(4), 305 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, 'BNS') and later on, section 317(2) of the BNS was added.

3. The main submissions advanced by petitioners' counsel are that the FIR itself shows that the main allegation of stealing the ornaments from the house of the informant is against one, namely, Dipesh Kumar Yadav, who happens to be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61594 of 2025(4) dt.17-12-2025 2/3 the son of the petitioner No. 1 and the brother of the petitioner No. 2 and in the later part of the FIR, the informant simply suspected the petitioners to be involved with the said co-accused Dipesh Kumar Yadav. It is further submitted that though the recovery of some ornaments is said to have been made from the house of the petitioners but no Test Identification Parade has been conducted in respect of the recovered ornaments, which are generally found in houses and further, an inordinate delay of seven days took place in the registration of the FIR and the informant himself claimed to have recovered the stolen ornaments and produced them before the police.

4. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that both the petitioners were involved in the alleged crime as conspirators.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and mainly petitioners' custody period and completion of investigation against them, coupled with the fact that the main allegation is against the co-accused Dipesh Kumar Yadav, son of the petitioner No. 1, whose act of stealing the ornaments from the informant's house was captured in the CCTV camera, this Court is inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, let the petitioners named-above be released on bail on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61594 of 2025(4) dt.17-12-2025 3/3 furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 66 of 2025.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/- U T