Patna High Court
Surendra Kumar Yadav @ Surendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, noting the later addition of his name to the FIR and the distinct nature of his alleged involvement.
Summary
Surendra Kumar Yadav applied for bail in a criminal case (PS Jaynagar Case No. 276 of 2025) involving alleged sexual exploitation and the creation and viral distribution of a video, charged under Sections 76, 79, 308(1), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner was not named in the original FIR but was later implicated as an assistant in the crime based on the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. He has been in custody since 27‑11‑2025 and offered to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner’s name had emerged during investigation. The Court noted that the petitioner’s involvement differed from the co‑accused and that his name was not initially recorded, and therefore ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of family surety and physical presence in court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the petitioner’s name was added to the FIR after the investigation began
- Whether the allegations under the BNSS and IT Act justify denial of bail
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged role as an assistant warrants the same treatment as the principal accused
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 308(1), 3(5), 351(2), 76, 79
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 67(A)
Subjects
- bail
- FIR
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Information Technology Act
- sexual exploitation
- video pornography
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17123 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2025 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Surendra Kumar Yadav @ Surendra Yadav S/o Nageshwar Yadav R/o Village
- Yogiya Tiwari Tola, P.S - Ladaniya, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-06-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and learned APP for the State,
through virtual mode.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the
petitioner in connection with Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 276 of
2025 registered under Sections 76, 79, 308(1), 351(2), and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67(A) of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that all the F.I.R named
accused persons tried to establish physical relation with the
informant, also made the video and viraled it.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the
outset, that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and although
the F.I.R is an exhaustive document, naming the other accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17123 of 2026(2) dt.08-06-2026
2/3
persons with main allegation being attributed to one Rakesh
Kumar Yadav and assistance was provided by the other accused
persons, namely, Kuldeep Singh and Sonu Chaudhary. The
name of the petitioner subsequently taken by the
informant/victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of
the BNSS, stating therein that the petitioner was also involved
with the other accused persons in recording the video. It is
further submitted that the incident took place 20 to 25 days prior
to the lodging of the F.I.R and the F.I.R was lodged by the
victim only after the video was already made viral. The
petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2025 and he undertakes to
cooperate in the case/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State on the ground that the name of the petitioner has
been transpired during investigation.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the
name of the petitioner was not initially taken in the F.I.R and his
name has transpired specifically with allegation of assistance in
the crime, coupled with the fact that the case of the petitioner
does not stand on similar footing with the other co-accused
persons, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17123 of 2026(2) dt.08-06-2026
3/3
connection with Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 276 of 2025, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Court concerned where the case is pending/successor
Court, subject to the following conditions:-
(I) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be the
family member/close relative of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
the learned trial Court on each date and shall cooperate in the
trial. In case the petitioner is absent on the two consecutive
dates without sufficient reasons, the learned trial Court would be
at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.