Patna High Court
Anil Yadav @ Sadam @ SaddamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted as the prosecution failed to produce substantive evidence linking the petitioner to the offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Yadav, was arrested on 28‑12‑2024 in connection with an FIR dated 04‑10‑2020 alleging possession of explosive substances, charged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act. He applied for bail, contending that the only material linking him to the offence was the confessional statement of a co‑accused, Jitendra Kumar, and that none of the eight charge‑sheet witnesses identified him at the scene. The prosecution opposed bail, pointing to seven other criminal cases pending against the petitioner, though he was on bail in four of them. The Court examined the evidentiary record and found the prosecution’s case against the petitioner weak, noting the absence of any direct testimony or material evidence. Accordingly, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents. The order was pronounced by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the prosecution’s case rests solely on a co‑accused’s confessional statement and lacks direct evidence against the petitioner
- Whether the petitioner’s pending criminal cases justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Explosive Substances Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- explosive substances
- confessional statement
- evidence
- pending criminal cases
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20583 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2020 Thana- KHIJARSARAI District- Gaya
======================================================
Anil Yadav @ Sadam @ Saddam S/O Late Ramlakhan Prasad R/O Village-
Dharampur, P.S- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-04-2026 Heard Mr.Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
28.12.2024 in connection with S.Tr.No.131/2025 arising out
of Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 302/2020, F.I.R. dated
04.10.2020 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and Sections
16,18,20 of U.A.P. Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner along
with other accused persons were found in suspicious
condition and on search, a white plastic bag containing 25
pieces explosive substance has been recovered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the name of the petitioner has been transpired
during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement
of co-accused person, namely, Jitendra Kumar and except the
confessional statement of co-accused person, no other cogent
material has come during investigation against the petitioner
to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present
occurrence and charge has been framed against the petitioner
and other co-accused persons on 31.12.2024 and out of eight
chargesheet witnesses, five witnesses have been examined but
not a single witness has stated anything about the petitioner
and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and
the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was not present at
the place of occurrence and the police, after investigation,
submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner
is in custody since 28.12.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries
seven more cases other than the present one but he fairly
submits that out of seven cases, the petitioner is on bail in
four cases, and rest three cases are pending for consideration
before the competent court of law, as mentioned in para-3 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
3/4
the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, let the petitioner,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-Xth, Gaya Jee in connection with S.Tr.No.131/2025
arising out of Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 302/2020, with the
following conditions:-
(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall
be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the
Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the
Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates
without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled
by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in
case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed
his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
4/4
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…