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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72353 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2025 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa ====================================================== 1.

Suraj Kumar Yadav @ Suraj Kumar son of Uday Shankar Ray Resident of Village- Trimurti More, Ps- Dhanbad, Dist- Dhanbad 2.

Pinku Kumar son of Ramdhani Prasad @ Ramdhani Prasad Gupta Resident of Village- Trimurti More, Ps- Dhanbad, Dist- Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anjani Kumar Jha, Adv.

Ms. Anita Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Vishwa Shri Rajendra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Mahishi P.S. Case No. 251 of 2025 dated 30.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 303(2), 317(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners were caught with a stolen vehicle and when they were asked for valid papers then they did not produce the same and later provided fake and fabricated documents of the said vehicle. It is further alleged that when the verification of the said vehicle was done by the DTO

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72353 of 2025(2) dt.18-11-2025 2/2 then it was found that the vehicle is registered with one Hiro Rai.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners have been made accused in this case merely on suspicion. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners have no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioners have clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioners are in custody since 31.07.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition of the petitioners.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioners abovenamed, 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, Saharsa in connection with Mahishi P.S. Case No. 251 of 2025.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T