Satyendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79179 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2023 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Satyendra Ram S/o Maulvi Ram R/o Village- Thikaha Bankat, P.S- Pakridayal, DistEast Champaran, Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 26.04.2025 in connection with Sessions Trial P.S. Case No. 1028 of 2025 arising out of Pakaridayal Case No. 231 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 01.11.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons is alleged to have kidnapped the brother of the informant and detained him at a place of a liquor mafia in Haryana where he was allegedly beaten.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is false and fabricated. He further submits that the victim was recovered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79179 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026 2/3 and his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in which he has stated that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons have kidnapped him but the co-accused person, namely, Prashant Kumar Singh, against whom there is similar allegation has been granted the privilege of regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.06.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 11534 of 2025. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that name of the petitioner transpired on the basis of statement of the victim which is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and apart from that the petitioner carries four criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that similarly situated co-accused person has been granted the privilege of regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79179 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026 3/3 like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Pakaridayal Case No. 231 of 2023, 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 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T