Aditya Yadav @ Babla Yadav @ Babla @ Aditya Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86135 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2024 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Aditya Yadav @ Babla Yadav @ Babla @ Aditya Kumar S/O Janardan Yadav R/o Dhuria Kalasan, P.S.- Chousa, Distt.- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raghaw Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-03-2026 Heard Mr. Raghaw Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 05.07.2025 in connection with Chousa P.S. Case No. 309 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 03.12.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case as per written report of informant who is alleging there in that on 02.12.2024 son of informant went to Kamp Balia village with his wife and thereafter son of informant was going to Puraini after left his wife. At about 05-5:30 hours in the evening when the son of informant was driving in four-wheeler vehicle at Arajpur
2/4 Jamunia Tola then four persons riding with two motorcycle stopped the vehicle of the son of informant and fired thereafter son of informant has sustained injury then police and villagers reached there and son of informant went to the primary health center Chausa with the help of police and villagers, where doctor has declared dead.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused person, namely, Sittu Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare perusal of the confessional statement of coaccused person, namely, Sittu Kumar which suggest that said Sittu Kumar has confessed his guilt in the present occurrence and stated that he and one co-accused Nitish Kumar have fired upon the victim and one co-accused person, namely, Satyam Yadav @ Satyam Kumar against whom is the similar allegation has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 79761 of 2025 and the Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has
3/4 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries three more cases other than the present one but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matters as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, 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 learned S.D.J.M., Udakishunganj, Madhepura in connection with Chousa P.S. Case No. 309 of 2024, with 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her 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
4/4 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) Ranjeet/- U T