Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Tridev Yadav @ Trideo Yadav @ Tridev KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Tridev Yadav, was charged with illegal sand excavation under Sections 303(2) & 317(2) of the BNS, Sections 4(1) & 21 of the MMDR Act, and several provisions of the B.M. (CPIMTS) Rule, 2019 amendment Act, 2024. The prosecution alleged that 3,000 cubic feet of sand had been illegally excavated and stored, based largely on an informant’s information, with no material recovered from the petitioner’s possession. The petitioner argued that no direct evidence linked him to the excavation and that he had been in judicial custody since 13‑12‑2025 without any recovery of sand. The State opposed bail, citing four prior criminal cases against the petitioner. After considering the lack of direct evidence and the petitioner’s custody status, the court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail should be granted in a case of alleged illegal sand excavation where evidence is primarily based on an informant’s testimony.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

  • BNS — s. 303(2), 317(2)

Subjects

  • bail
  • regular bail
  • illegal sand excavation
  • informant testimony
  • judicial custody
  • criminal antecedent
  • Sections 303(2)
  • Sections 317(2)
  • MMDR Act
  • CPIMTS Rule

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13650 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2025 Thana- SHAMBHUGANJ District- Banka
                 ======================================================
                 Tridev Yadav @ Trideo Yadav @ Tridev Kumar S/O Lalan @ Lalu Yadav
                 Village- Chhoti Bharatshila, P.S.- Shambhuganj, District- Banka
                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.    The Director Mines Dept. Govt. of Bihar Patna
                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s      :      Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate
                 For the State             :      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
                 For the Mines Deptt.      :      Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl.P.P.
                                                  Mr. Utkarsh Pathak, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-03-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP

                   for the State and learned Spl.P.P. for the Department of Mines,

                   Government of Bihar.

                               2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) &

                   317(2) of the BNS, under Sections 4(1) & 21 of the MMDR Act

                   and under Sections 11, 41, 43, 56(2)(iv)(vi) of the B.M.

                   (CPIMTS) Rule, 2019 amendment Act, 2024.

                               3.       The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   informant got information that sand is being illegally excavated

                   and is being stored. Altogether 3,000 CFT of sand was found.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

                   later part of the FIR it is alleged that the informant came to
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13650 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                                        2/2




                      know during enquiry that the petitioner is one amongst the

                      accused persons who were liable for this. Learned counsel for

                      the petitioner has further submitted that nothing has been

                      recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Learned

                      counsel has further submitted that no one has seen him

                      collecting or excavating the sand and it is only the objective

                      satisfaction of the informant that the petitioner was involved in

                      the act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

                      petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.12.2025.

                                   5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed

                      the prayer of regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is

                      having criminal antecedent of four cases.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                      of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on

                      bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on

                      bail in connection with Shambhuganj P.S. Case No. 264 of

                      2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with

                      two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

                      learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.