Gulshan YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.521 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2016 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Gulshan Yadav S/O Late Faudari Yadav Resident of Village- Makhdumpur,
                 P.S.- Mahkar, District- Gaya,

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   05-02-2026                  Heard Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned APP for the

                   State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Sirdalla P.S. Case No. 264 of 2016 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379,

                   427, 436, 504, 506, 387 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of

                   the Arms Act and Sections 15, 18, 19 and 20 of U.A.P. Act.

                                3. As per written report, Vinod Kumar Yadav

                   sustained injury at the place of occurrence who was proprietor

                   of M/s. Vinod Kumar Yadav Construction Agency. He was

                   constructing Railway Bridge. He informed the police that under

                   the leadership of Praduman Sharma, extremists demanded levy

                   earlier in lieu to construction of Railway Bridge and when he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.521 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
                                            2/3




          saw his inability, extremists burnt four vehicles, assaulted and

          injured his staff Kailash Yadav and other labourers. He disclosed

          that in course of assault and burning, the extremists were calling

          each other with their names. He further disclosed the name of 63

          accused persons including the petitioner.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

          committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this

          case. From perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there is no

          specific allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

          petitioner also submits that it is not possible that accused

          persons while committing the offence will call each other with

          their names and it is also not palpable that one may remember

          the names of 63 persons. The nature of allegation is general and

          omnibus. It has also been submitted that similarly situated

          several accused persons have already been granted bail by

          another coordinate bench of this court as well as from this court

          in Cr. Misc. No. 59691 of 2025. The case of this petitioner

          stands on similar footing. He further submits that a statement

          has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no

          criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody

          since 18.07.2025.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.521 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                     inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                     petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                     bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

                     of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief

                     Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in connection with Sirdalla P.S.

                     Case No. 264 of 2016.



                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

U      T