Dismissed¶22

Surendra Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jan 2025CR. MISC./43449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC bail rejection; Surendra Yadav v. State of Bihar; Cr. Misc. No. 43449 of 2024; Jhajha PS Case 627/2023, Jamui; IPC 302, 364(A), 147, 149, 341, 323, 379, 365, 504, 506; abduction and murder of Sintu Yadav; confessional statement in case diary Para 185; disclosure-led recovery of motorcycle from well; CDR/mobile number 8709833575 linkage; co-accused Pramod Kumar Yadav confession Para 37 and earlier bail (Cr. Misc. No. 37809 of 2024, order dated 21.10.2024); gravity of offence; Section 100 Cr.P.C. compliance argument; Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra.

What did the court decide?

In Para-185 of the case diary there is a confessional statement of the petitioner in which he confessed his guilt of being involved in the alleged occurrence. ¶21

Surendra Yadav Vs the State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Surendra Yadav, should be granted bail in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 627 of 2023 (offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 379, 365, 504, 506 IPC, with Sections 302 & 364(A) IPC later added), having regard to the prosecution material (confessional statement, disclosure-led recoveries, CDR linkage) urged against him and the defence grounds (no name in FIR, delayed FIR, omnibus allegations, no antecedents).

¶11

Court's answer

In Para-185 of the case diary there is a confessional statement of the petitioner in which he confessed his guilt of being involved in the alleged occurrence.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

On the basis of the disclosures made by the petitioner, the police recovered the motorcycle of the deceased from the same well from which the dead body of the deceased was recovered.

¶21

Key takeaways

Soon before the occurrence the petitioner was in touch through mobile with co-accused Pramod Kumar Yadav, who has also confessed his guilt in his confessional statement contained in Para-37 of the case diary.ratio¶21
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and taking into account the petitioner's confessional statement which led to recovery of the deceased's motorcycle from the well, the Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage and rejects the prayer for bail.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected — Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43449 of 2024, decided 10-01-2025 by Rudra Prakash Mishra, J. Surendra Yadav sought bail in Jhajha P.S. Case No. 627 of 2023 (District Jamui) for offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 379, 365, 504, 506 IPC, with Sections 302 & 364(A) IPC added later. Although not named in the FIR (his name transpired through a co-accused's confessional statement), CDR scrutiny showed his mobile number (8709833575) in constant touch with the co-accuseds' numbers, leading to his arrest; the dead body of the deceased, Sintu Yadav, was recovered from a well, and his motorcycle was recovered from the same well on the petitioner's disclosure (case diary Para 185 confession; independent witnesses at Paras 224, 225, 230, 231). Counsel for the petitioner urged innocence, two days' unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, general and omnibus allegations, the doctor reserving the cause-of-death opinion pending the F.S.L. report, non-compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C., absence of criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused Pramod Yadav @ Pramod Kumar Yadav who had been granted bail by order dated 21.10.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 37809 of 2024. The Court found the petitioner's own confessional statement admitting guilt (Para 185), the disclosure-led recovery of the motorcycle, and mobile contact with co-accused Pramod Kumar Yadav shortly before the occurrence (who also confessed, Para 37 of the case diary), and held that, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the prayer for bail was not inclined to be granted and was rejected.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43449 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-627 Year-2023 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Surendra Yadav Son of Bhuna Yadav Resident of Village - Jalgorwa, P.S. - Gidhour, District - Jamui

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Akash Raj, Adv. ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶8

6 10-01-2025

¶9

ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶10

APP for the State as also learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the case diary.

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 627 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 379, 365, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and later on added Sections 302 & 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 20.12.2023 at about 7 P.M. in the evening when brother of the informant namely Sintu Yadav was returning to his house at Govindpur, suddenly 5-6 persons came from behind and stopped the motorcycle of the informant's brother bearing registration No. BR-46/9457 and forcibly abducted him along with his motorcycle. It is alleged that on call, the phone was picked up

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43449 of 2024(6) dt.10-01-2025 2/4

¶14

by the victim brother of the informant but, he was not able to speak. Therefore, the informant under an apprehension of any untoward incident has lodged this case against the accused persons as named in the F.I.R.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement of another co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is delay of two days in registering the F.I.R. that too without there being any explanation for such delay. There is no direct or specific allegation of any overt act against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. He further submits that the doctor could not ascertain the cause of death of the deceased and the opinion was reserved till receipt of the F.S.L. report. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence. There is non-compliance of provision of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C.. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 04.01.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner again submits

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43449 of 2024(6) dt.10-01-2025 3/4

¶18

that the co-accused namely Pramod Yadav @ Pramod Kumar Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37809 of 2024.

¶19

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but, in course of scrutiny of the CDR details, it was found that the mobiles of the co-accused Pramod Yadav @ Sadhu Yadav @ Sonu and Pramod Kumar Yadav son of Bhuna Yadav were in constant touch with another mobile number being 8709833575 which belongs to the petitioner Surendra Yadav. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and, in course of investigation, the police recovered the dead body of the deceased/Sintu Yadav from the well. The petitioner in his confessional statement contained in Para 185 of the case diary has further informed the police that the motorcycle of the deceased was also disposed off in the same well from which the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid disclosures, the police recovered the motorcycle of the deceased from the same well. Several independent witnesses in Para 224, 225, 230 and 231 of the case diary have also supported the prosecution case. The offence alleged is serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve bail by this Court.

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43449 of 2024(6) dt.10-01-2025 4/4

¶21

Having heard rival contention of both the parties, this Court finds that in Para-185 of the case diary, there is a confessional statement of the petitioner in which he has confessed his guilt of being involved in the alleged occurrence. On the basis of disclosures made by the petitioner, the police has recovered the motorcycle of the deceased from the same well from where the dead-body of the deceased was recovered. This Court also finds that soon before the occurrence, the petitioner was in touch through mobile with the co-accused Pramod Kumar Yadav who has also confessed his guilt in the confessional statement contained in Para-37 of the cease diary.

¶22

Accordingly, considering the nature and gravity of the offence as also taking into account the confessional statement of the petitioner which led to recovery of the motorcycle of the deceased from the well, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage and the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

¶23

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶24

rishi/-

¶25

U T

Surendra Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Qurban @ Md. Kurban Ali Vs The State of Bihar

Shambhu Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Kumar @ Samrat @ Suraj Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Mohit Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Ranvir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar