Patna High Court
Sudama YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail may be granted in the present case despite the seriousness of the offences and prior antecedents, provided the petitioner furnishes a bond and sureties, and the trial court retains power to cancel bail if he attempts to delay the trial.
Summary
Sudama Yadav was arrested in connection with illegal sand mining and charged under Sections 305(e) and 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, noting that the informant who named him was not mentioned in the FIR and that he has two prior cases. He had been in custody since 21-12-2025 and a charge‑sheet had already been filed. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s antecedents. The court, after considering the petitioner's arguments, granted bail on condition of a Rs.25,000 bond and two sureties of equal amount. It further directed that the trial court may cancel the bail if the petitioner attempts to delay framing of charge or the trial itself.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of offences under Sections 305(e) and 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita despite prior antecedents.
- Whether the non‑disclosure of the informant in the FIR affects the grant of bail.
- What conditions may be imposed for cancellation of bail if the accused delays the trial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 305(e), 317(4)
Subjects
- illegal sand mining
- bail
- false implication
- prior antecedents
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11267 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2025 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada
======================================================
Sudama Yadav S/O Madan Yadav R/O Village- Bhorambag, P.O- Itpakwa,
P.S- Kawakol, District- Nawada- 805106.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Muskan Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nagendra Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 305(e), 317(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges
that a raid was conducted for seizing illegally mined sand from
Naki river and 15114 cft sand was found illegally mined and the
villagers disclosed the name of petitioner, further the accused
are liable for payment of fine for illegally mining sand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant and he came to be implicated at the instance of local
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11267 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
people, but then the name of the person, who disclosed the name
of the petitioner, is not disclosed in the FIR, which casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has not
been implicated based on secret information. It is also submitted
that since petitioner has antecedent, as such the informant
implicated him. It is further submitted that petitioner is in
custody since 21-12-2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted.
It is next submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted to
the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will co-
operate in the trial to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case
is pending/successor court in connection with Kawakol P.S.
Case No.193/2025.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release
is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11267 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
charge is trying to delay the trial, in both the conditions, the
learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of
the petitioner after recording reasons.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…