Patna High Court
SURENDRA YADAV @ RAUSHAN @ BHURKUND @ RAUSHAN JEEversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Surendra Yadav, was arrested in May 2025 in connection with a murder case (IPC sections 302 and 34) arising from a FIR dated 14 June 2024. The prosecution alleged that the victim was shot dead on 13 June 2024 and that the petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of confessional statements of co‑accused persons. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not originally named in the FIR, and that no other material links him to the offence. The State opposed bail, but the Court observed that other co‑accused had already been released on bail and that the only evidence against the petitioner was the co‑accused statements. Considering these circumstances, the Court granted bail on a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents. The order was directed to be implemented by the District & Additional Sessions Judge, XIX, Gaya.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner when the only evidence against him is the confessional statements of co‑accused and he has a clean antecedent
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- clean antecedent
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- criminal antecedent verification
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22780 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2024 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya
======================================================
SURENDRA YADAV @ RAUSHAN @ BHURKUND @ RAUSHAN JEE
S/O LATE AKLU YADAV R/o Village- Pande Pokhar, PS- Konch, District-
Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, 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. Rajendra Prasad Nat, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
13.05.2025.2025, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 829 of
2025 arising out of Konch P.S. Case No. 256 of 2024, F.I.R. dated
14.06.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.06.2024
at about 11 P.M. in the night, brother of informant was shot dead
by some unknown persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated
in the present case. He further submits that initially the petitioner
was not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22780 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
2/4
been transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused persons namely Jitendra Yadav @ Amarjeet Yadav and
Jairam Yadav and except the confessional statement of co-accused
persons, no other cogent material has come during investigation to
suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present
occurrence. He furtrher submits that co-accused person, namely
Jitendra Yadav @ Amarjit Yadav who has confessed the name of
the petitioner has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35054
of 2025, another co-accused person namely Sukhendra Yadav has
been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 13.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7406 of 2025, another
co-accused person namely Umesh Yadav has been granted the
privilege of anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 74179 of
2025, respectively. He further submits that the police after
investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the
petitioner is in custody since 13.05.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and
initially the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R and the name of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22780 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
3/4
the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused persons and the said person has been
granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, another co-
accused persons have been granted bail and anticipatory bail by a
Coordinate Benches of this Court, let the petitioner, above named,
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge- XIX,
Gaya Jee in connection with Sessions Trial No. 829 of 2025
arising out of Konch P.S. Case No. 256 of 2024, 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 shall remain physically present as directed 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) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.
(3) 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
antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22780 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
4/4
bond of the petitioner. However, the 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)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…