Patna High Court
Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court ordered that both petitioners be released on regular bail upon furnishing the prescribed bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioners, Amit Kumar Yadav and Sudhir Sah, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, alleging they were implicated only through the confessional statement of a co‑accused, Sunil Kumar. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were part of a gang that looted a traveller of Rs.5,00,000 and other articles. The petitioners contended that the FIR was initially filed against unknown persons and no incriminating material was recovered from them. The court considered the material disclosed in the investigation, the co‑accused’s statement, and the prolonged custody of the petitioners since August and November 2025. Finding the evidence insufficient to deny bail, the court ordered that both petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 given the nature of the allegations.
- Whether the statement of a co‑accused, without recovery of any incriminating article, is sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the duration of custody of the petitioners warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 310(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- Section 310(2)
- Arms Act Section 27
- co‑accused statement
- custody duration
- criminal miscellaneous
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12418 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Yadav S/O Hari Yadav @ Kari Yadav Resident of
Village- Kanhauli, P.S- Sakri, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 12422 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Sudhir Sah @ Sudhir Kumar Sah S/o Shankar Sah Resident of village-
Korahiya, P.S- Jaynagar, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 12418 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 12422 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Bahera P.S. Case no. 211
of 2025 registered under section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12418 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/3
that while he was going to Darbhanga in his car carrying
Rs.5,00,000/- besides other articles in a bag, six accused persons
in a scorpio vehicle looted him of his articles including cash.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR
was registered against unknown. Referring to the order of the learned
trial Court, it is submitted that name of both the petitioners transpired
in course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused
Sunil Kumar who has himself been enlarged on bail vide order dated
5.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 76706 of 2025. No incriminating
article has been recovered from the petitioners’ possession. The
petitioners are in custody since 1.8.2025 and 25.11.2025 respectively.
The cause of their false implication are their antecedents.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material
that has transpired in course of investigation as evident from the
order of the learned trial Court, the name of the petitioners
transpiring in the statement of a co-accused Sunil Kumar who
has himself been enlarged on bail vide order dated 5.12.2025
and the petitioners having remained in custody since 1.8.2025
and 25.11.2025, in the facts of the case, the Court directs that both
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12418 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/3
the petitioners above named be enlarged on bail in connection with
Bahera P.S. Case no. 211 of 2025 (G.R. no. 261 of 2025) on each of
them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Benipur, Darbhanga.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.