Patna High Court
Vinay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Bail was granted as the prosecution failed to produce substantive material evidence against the petitioners and their prolonged custody was unjustified.
Summary
The petitioners Suryadeo Kumar and Vinay Kumar applied for bail in connection with Barachatti Police Station Case No. 150 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 311 and 312 of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act (B.N.S.). The prosecution’s case was based primarily on the confessional statement of a co‑accused, Guddu Kumar, with no material recovered from the petitioners and no identification parade conducted. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, had clean antecedents (except Suryadeo’s two pending cases for which he was already on bail), and had been in custody for several months despite the charge sheet being filed. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed bail, but the court noted the lack of substantive evidence and the prolonged detention. Accordingly, the court ordered the release of both petitioners on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties each, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. and additional personal surety requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to justify continued detention of the petitioners.
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. in view of the pending charge sheet and the nature of the alleged offences.
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- insufficient evidence
- Section 311
- Section 312
- Section 480(3)
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1026 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2025 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Suryadeo Kumar @ Suryadeo Singh S/o Surendra Singh R/o Village-Dang,
P.S.-Barachatti, District-Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1366 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2025 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Vinay Kumar S/o Bal Kishun Yadav R/Vill- Piprahi, P.S.- Barachatti, Distt-
Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1026 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1366 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
02. Since the both the petitions arise out of
Barachatti P.S. Case No. 150 of 2025 they are taken up together
and are being disposed of by this common order.
03. In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1026 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 150 of 2025 registered
for the alleged offences under Sections 311. 312 of B.N.S.
04. As per prosecution case, while the informant
has been carrying garlic in a pickup van, the vehicle suffered a
puncture. While the informant and his father-in-law had been
changing tyre, some miscreants came there and tried to drag
away the informant and in the scuffle the clothes of the
informant was torn. The miscreants also assaulted the father-in-
law of the informant and later on, shot him. The name of the
petitioners transpired during investigation for being involved in
the occurrence.
05. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit
that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely
implicated in this case. Nothing incriminating has been
recovered from the person or possession of the petitioners and
the petitioners have not been put to any Test Identification
Parade. Merely on suspicion based on the confessional
statement of co-accused Guddu Kumar, the name of the
petitioners transpired in this case. Except that there is no other
material to substantiate the claim of the informant against the
petitioners. The petitioners have no concern with co-accused,
who named them in this case. Petitioner Suryadeo Kumar is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1026 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
having antecedent of two cases and he is on bail in both the
cases and petitioner Vinay Kumar is having clean antecedent.
Petitioners are in custody since 24.06.2025 and 27.04.2025,
respectively and charge sheet has been submitted.
06. Learned APP opposes the submission made on
behalf of the petitioners.
07. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering
the lack of substantive material against the petitioners and also
considering the period of custody of the petitioners and
submission of charge sheet, the petitioners above named are
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-II,
Sherghati, Gaya/concerned Court in connection with Barachatti
P.S. Case No. 150 of 2025, subject to the conditions mentioned
in Section 480(3) of B.N.S.S. and also the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors will be a close
relative of the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present
on each and every date fixed by the
court below.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1026 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
(iii) In case of absence on three
consecutive dates or in violation of the
terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioners will be liable to be
cancelled by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
U T
Checking your session…