Sunil Yadav @ Rajnikant @ Ravikant Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33457 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-655 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna

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

Sunil Yadav @ Rajnikant @ Ravikant Son of Rambalak Yadav Resident of Village- Madhopur, District- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.. ... Petitioner/s Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s

¶6

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ahmad Ali, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶8

2 14-05-2026

¶9

Heard Mr.Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel

¶10

appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Ahmad Ali, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 11.02.2026 in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 655 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 01.12.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2)(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶12

Allegation against the petitioner is that he directed the co-accused person to fire upon the father of the informant and kill him due to which the said co-accused person has fired upon the father of the informant and he sustained injuries.

¶13

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it appears from the FIR that the petitioner is named in the FIR but there is no specific allegation of any assault or

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33457 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026 2/3

¶15

overt-act attributed against the petitioner rather allegation against the petitioner is that he is the order giver and the petitioner has directed the co-accused person to fire upon the father of the informant and kill him due to which the co-accused person has fired upon the father of the informant and except the aforesaid, nothing has come during investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and there is no specific allegation of any assault, overt-act or firing attributed against the petitioner and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2026.

¶16

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has participated in the present crime in question, apart from that the petitioner carries five more cases other than the present one, out of five cases, in three cases, final form has been submitted, in one case, the petitioner has been acquitted and in rest one case, the petitioner is on bail, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid fact, 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

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33457 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026 3/3

¶19

each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Barh, Patna in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 655 of 2025, with the following conditions:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶24

Nitesh/- U T

Sunil Yadav @ Rajnikant @ Ravikant v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Yadav @ Rajnikant @ Ravikant v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Jay Prakash Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Dagru Kale Vs The State of Bihar

Sintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Koda @ Suvit Kada Vs The State of Bihar

Abhiraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar