Sandip Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83765 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2025 Thana- BUXAR INDUSTRIAL District- Buxar ====================================================== Sandip Yadav, S/o Late Surendra Yadav @ Late Surendra Kumar Yadav, R/o Village- Dalsagar, P.S- Buxar Industrial in the District of Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Buxar Industrial P.S. Case No. 187 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-b)a, 25(1-aa), 26, 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. As per the prosecution case, the police conducted a raid in the house of one Dinesh Yadav where accused Dinesh Yadav and his brother were apprehended. Four persons were seen trying to escape, however, they were also apprehended and among them the petitioner was one of the accused. It has been
2/4 alleged that there was recovery of one mobile phone from the petitioner, while arms were recovered from the house of Dinesh Yadav.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has no concern whatsoever with the recovery of arms. It has been submitted that the petitioner has two criminal antecedents and since he was apprehended at the place of occurrence, he has been implicated in a case where neither recovery of arms was made from his conscious possession, nor any tools for making any illegal arms were recovered from the petitioner. It has next been submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Anup Paswan, Dayanand Yadav and Durgesh Upadhyay have been granted privilege of bail by different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Cr. Misc. Nos. 82849 of 2025, 83898 of 2025 and 83328 of 2025 vide order dated 08.12.2025, 11.12.2025 and 03.12.2025 respectively.
5. The learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the parties, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two
3/4 sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Buxar Industrial P.S. Case No. 187 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative and the other shall be local resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned 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.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
4/4
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) manoj/- U T