Patna High Court
Satyam Yadav @ Satyam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the petition for bail, granting release on bond with conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Satyam Yadav, was arrested on 13‑02‑2025 in connection with a murder case (FIR dated 03‑12‑2024) alleged under Section 103(1) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case is based on the testimony of a co‑accused who, in a confessional statement, implicated the petitioner along with others, and the recovery of the petitioner’s mobile phone near the crime scene. The defence argued that the petitioner’s name does not appear in the FIR and that no direct material, other than the co‑accused’s confession, links him to the offence. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence, the phone evidence, and the petitioner’s other pending criminal cases. The court, after considering the lack of substantive evidence against the petitioner, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposed standard conditions for cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a murder case under Section 103(1) BNS and Section 27 Arms Act when the primary evidence is a co‑accused’s confessional statement and phone recovery.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal cases affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 27 Arms Act
- Section 103(1) BNS
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- pending criminal cases
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79761 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2024 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Satyam Yadav @ Satyam Kumar Son of Late- Jay Prakesh Yadav @ Late
Prakash Yadav Resident of Village - Dhuria, Kalasan, Ward No. 14, P.S. -
Chausa, District - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 29-01-2026 Heard Mr.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
13.02.2025 in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No. 309 of
2024, F.I.R. dated 03.12.2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 103(1) of BNS and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case as per written report of
informant who is alleging there in that on 02.12.2024 son of
informant went to Kamp Balia village with his wife and
thereafter son of informant was going to Puraini after left his
wife. At about 05-5:30 hours in the evening when the son of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79761 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
informant was driving in four-wheeler vehicle at Arajpur
Jamunia Tola then four persons riding with two motorcycle
stopped the vehicle of the son of informant and fired thereafter
son of informant has sustained injury then police and villagers
reached there and son of informant went to the primary health
center Chausa with the help of police and villagers, where
doctor has declared dead.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of
the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the
basis of the confessional statement of co-accused person,
namely, Sittu Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that from a bare perusal of the confessional statement of co-
accused person, namely, Sittu Kumar that it has been transpired
that co-accused persons, namely, Sittu Kumar and Nitish Kumar
have fired upon the victim, although the petitioner was present
at the place of occurrence and except the aforesaid, no other
cogent material has come during investigation against the
petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the
present occurrence and the police, after investigation, submitted
the chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in
custody since 13.02.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79761 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner was involved in the present crime in
question and apart from the aforesaid, the phone of the
petitioner was found near the place of occurrence. Further
submits that the petitioner carries four more cases other than the
present one but fairly submits that out of four cases, the
petitioner is on bail in one case and rest three cases are pending
for consideration before the competent court of law, as
mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, 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 S.D.J.M., Udakishunganj,
Madhepura in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No. 309 of
2024, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79761 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
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
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…