Patna High Court
Aditya Yadav @ Babla Yadav @ Babla @ Aditya KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the confession of a co‑accused alone does not preclude bail, provided the petitioner complies with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Aditya Yadav, was arrested on 5 July 2025 in connection with a 2024 case involving the death of an informant’s son, alleged to be under Sections 103(1) of the BNS and 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR did not name the petitioner; his alleged involvement emerged from a confessional statement of co‑accused Sittu Kumar, who also implicated another accused, Satyam Yadav, who had earlier been granted bail. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and three other pending cases against the petitioner, though he was on bail in those matters. The petitioner’s counsel argued lack of direct FIR naming and reliance on a co‑accused’s confession. The court examined the materiality of the confession, the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, and the principle of bail, and ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to strict conditions. The bail order also mandated cooperation with the trial and prohibited tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused whose name does not appear in the FIR but is derived solely from a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under Sections 103(1) of the BNS and 27 of the Arms Act, together with pending cases, warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- confessional statement
- Arms Act
- criminal breach of trust
- co‑accused
- pending criminal cases
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86135 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2024 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Aditya Yadav @ Babla Yadav @ Babla @ Aditya Kumar S/O Janardan Yadav
R/o Dhuria Kalasan, P.S.- Chousa, Distt.- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghaw Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 10-03-2026 Heard Mr. Raghaw 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
05.07.2025 in connection with Chousa 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
informant was driving in four-wheeler vehicle at Arajpur
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86135 of 2025(4) dt.10-03-2026
2/4
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 which suggest that said
Sittu Kumar has confessed his guilt in the present occurrence
and stated that he and one co-accused Nitish Kumar have fired
upon the victim and one co-accused person, namely, Satyam
Yadav @ Satyam Kumar against whom is the similar allegation
has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated
29.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 79761 of 2025 and the
Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the
petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86135 of 2025(4) dt.10-03-2026
3/4
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner carries three more cases other than
the present one but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in
the pending matters 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 Chousa 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86135 of 2025(4) dt.10-03-2026
4/4
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)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…