Patna High Court
Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar @ KuhurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to monetary and procedural conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Surendra Yadav, was charged under multiple IPC offences, the Arms Act and the UAP Act for alleged involvement in a kidnapping and extortion case. Earlier bail applications were rejected, and the trial had progressed with only one of four charge‑sheet witnesses examined, who denied the petitioner's presence at the crime scene. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and had been in custody for over two years without sufficient evidence. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges. The Court, after considering the limited prosecution evidence and the petitioner's cooperation, granted bail on a cash bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed several conditions, including regular court appearances and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the court in granting bail to an accused facing multiple serious offences?
- Does the paucity of prosecution evidence and the witness testimony exonerating the petitioner justify bail?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑Ba)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 323, 341, 364A, 385, 387, 504, 506
- Uttar Pradesh Arms (UAP) Act, 1967 — s. 10, 11, 13
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- evidence
- court discretion
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17417 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2023 Thana- LUTUA District- Gaya
======================================================
Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar @ Kuhur, Son of Kishori Yadav, R/o
Vill.- Asurain, P.S.- Lutua, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
5 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Lutua
PS Case No. 22 of 2023 dated 26.12.2023 instituted for the
offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 364A, 385,387, 504,
506, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25((1-B)a of
the Arms Act and Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the UAP Act, 1967.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the alleged
date of occurrence three militants took away three employees of
the construction company from the work place and brought
them to the forests. Later on, two of them were released after
assaulting them and they were asked to convey the owner of the
construction company to pay 5% of construction amount or 30
lakhs failing which they will kill the another employee, who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17417 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
2/5
was in the captivity of the militants. It is also alleged that earlier
co-accused, Ranjit Singh Bhokta, had come at the work place
and demanded the contact number of the contractor and co-
accused, Ranjit Yadav, told them to manage the matter with
Jungle King, namely, Vivek Yadav. About the petitioner, it is
alleged that he also used to come at the work place.
4. Earlier, vide order dated 26.07.2024 and 25.04.2025
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40361 of 2024 and
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5720 of 2025 respectively, the
petitioner’s bail application was rejected.
5. This is third attempt for grant of regular bail
application to the petitioner.
6. Vide order dated 18.03.2026, a report about the
present stage of trial was called for from the concerned Court,
which is on record. In the report, the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sherghati (Gaya ji) has submitted
that total charge-sheet witnesses is four and till date prosecution
has produced only one witness for examination before the
concerned court as PW-1 Arjun Yadav, who was examined on
11.09.2025.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17417 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
3/5
case. It is submitted that till date only two prosecution witnesses
have been examined out of four charge-sheet witnesses. It is
submitted that the militants took away three employees of the
construction company from the work place and were taken to
the forests. Later on, two out of them were released after
assaulting and they were asked to convey the owner of the
construction company to pay 5% of construction amount or 30
lakhs failing which they will kill the another employee, who
was in the captivity of the militants. It is further submitted that
three employees of construction company were released later
on. It is submitted that one of the kidnapped employee has been
examined as prosecution witness no. 1, namely, Arjun Yadav,
who denied the allegation against the petitioner and clearly
stated that the petitioner was not present when they were
kidnapped and brought to forests and also stated that the said
petitioner is resident of same village of P.W.-1. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the informant (Shailendra Singh)
has also been examined in this case but stated nothing against
the petitioner about the entire allegation. Lastly, it has been
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2024 i.e.
more than 2 years 4 months, having four criminal cases against
him and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17417 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
4/5
8. Learned A.P.P for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Sherghati, Gayaji in connection with Lutua P.S. Case
No. 22 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:-
1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and
shall be properly represented on each and every
date fixed by the Court and on his absence on two
consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail
bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
2. One of the bailors will be his own blood
relation, preferably father, mother, brother, sister
and or his wife.
3. The bailor shall also state on affidavit that
he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner
is made accused in any other case of similar nature
after his release in the present case and thereafter
the court below will be at liberty to initiate the
proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of
misuse.
4. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence
or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17417 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
5/5
be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
5. The petitioner within two weeks of his
release from custody shall appear before the S.H.O.
of his local area alongwith a copy of this order and
shall appear every fortnightly to mark his
attendance till conclusion of the trial.
(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.