Patna High Court
Satyam Yadav @ Satyam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The Court granted bail to both petitioners subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Satyam Yadav and Sittu Yadav, were charged under IPC sections 341, 354A, 307, 504, 506 (read with Section 34) and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly assaulting an informant and firing at him during an attempt to seize his niece. They contended that they were falsely implicated, had no intent to cause death, and highlighted their antecedent criminal cases while seeking bail. The State opposed the bail application. After considering the chargesheet, the period of custody since 13‑02‑2025, and the submissions of both sides, the Court ordered that both petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions including a close relative as bailor and attendance in court as required. The bail order was made under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. and other standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to the accused in offences punishable under IPC sections 341, 354A, 307, 504, 506 and Arms Act Section 27, considering the nature of the alleged crime and the petitioners' antecedent cases?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S.S. — s. 480(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34, 341, 354, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- antecedent cases
- chargesheet
- police case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91280 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2023 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Satyam Yadav @ Satyam Kumar S/o Late-Jay Prakash Yadav @ Late Prakash
Yadav, Resident of Village- Rasalpur, Dhuria, Kalasan, Ward No. 14, P.S.-
Chausa, District- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4244 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2023 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Sittu Yadav @ Sintu Kumar Son of Deep Narayan Yadav @ DipNarayan
Yadav, Resident of Village - Rasalpur Dhuriya, Ward No. 11, P.S. - Chausa,
Distt. - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 91280 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4244 of 2026)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Both the criminal miscellaneous petitions have arisen
out of the same police station case number, hence they are being
heard together and decided by a common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in
connection with Chausa P.S. Case No. 233 of 2023 dated
16.08.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91280 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
341, 354A, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, petitioners and other
co-accused persons tried to forcibly take away the niece of the
informant. When informant intervened, he was assaulted by the
petitioners and co-accused persons, who subsequently fired upon
him, causing injury in his left shoulder and right leg.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and they have
falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioners neither
misbehaved with the niece of the informant nor abused or
assaulted her. The allegation of firing is non-specific and general
and omnibus. There was no intention to cause death. It is next
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner in
Cr. Misc. No. 91280 of 2025 is having antecedent of four cases
and out of four cases he is on bail in one case and petitioner in Cr.
Misc. No. 4244 of 2026 is having antecedent of six cases and out
of six cases he is on bail in one case. It is lastly submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are in
custody since 13.02.2025 and chargesheet has been submitted.
6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91280 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
submission of chargesheet and period of custody of the petitioners,
the petitioners, above-named, are directed to be released on bail,
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Udakishunganj, Madhepura / concerned Court, in connection with
Chausa P.S. Case No. 233 of 2023, subject to the condition laid
down under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. and other following
conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and
every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned
trial Court.
(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners
will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U T
Checking your session…