Patna High Court
Raj Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Bail is granted subject to the conditions specified by the court.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered an application for bail by Raj Kumar Yadav, who is in custody for a 2010 robbery (IPC Section 395) involving the theft of money and a mobile phone from a van driver. The prosecution alleged that he had evaded the authorities for more than two years before being taken on remand and argued against his release. The petitioner claimed that his earlier bail was cancelled only because his counsel failed to file a plea, that he did not deliberately avoid trial, and that he is ready to appear at every hearing. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the alleged evasion. After hearing both sides, the court granted bail on a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions such as personal presence at each trial date, verification of criminal antecedents, periodic reporting to the Superintendent of Police, and provisions for cancellation if conditions are breached. The order also stated that any observations in the bail order would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a robbery case under Section 395 of the IPC where the accused has a prior bail cancellation and alleged evasion of trial
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- IPC 395
- Criminal Procedure Code
- court conditions
- trial attendance
- remand
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91327 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2010 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Raj Kumar Yadav, S/o Dashrath Yadav, R/o Village- Garhijam, Hardawan,
P.S.- Sherghati (Dobhi), District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Sherghati (Dobhi) P.S. Case No.207 of 2010
registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was
alleged to have been involved in the snatching away of some
amount of money and mobile phone from the driver of a van in
the year 2010.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was earlier granted bail in the present case and
only on account of pairvi not being made by his counsel, his bail
bond was cancelled at the time of framing of charge on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91327 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
04.10.2023. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had
not deliberately avoided his appearance, it was only on account
of delay in the trial that he could not appear due to his
employment at difference place. It has next been submitted that
the petitioner does not have any intentions to flee from facing
the trial of the present case and therefore has submitted that he
is ready to be present on each and every date of the trial.
5. The learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and has stated that the petitioner had evaded for
almost for more than two years before he was taken on remand
in the present case.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties, 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 the learned
court below where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Sherghati (Dobhi) P.S. Case No.207 of 2010,
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall
be his close relative and the other shall be local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically
present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence of the petitioner for a
single date in trial or in violation of the terms of the
bail, it shall entitle the lower court to cancelled the bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91327 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
bond of the petitioner.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in
similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned 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.
(vi) In view of the antecedent of the
petitioner, the petitioner is directed to appear before the
Superintendent of Police, Gaya within fifteen days of
his release with a copy of this order and every two
weeks thereafter for the next nine months. The conduct
of the petitioner will be kept under watch in this period
by the Superintendent of Police concerned and if it is
found wanting in any respect, a report shall be made to
the court concerned by him to initiate a proceeding for
cancellation of bail for reasons of misuse of bail. After
reporting to the Superintendent of Police, a certificate
will be filed by the petitioner before the court
concerned.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…