Devpujan Yadav @ Devpujan Ray Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sarita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shashtri, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 15-06-2026

¶12

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 318(4), 132, 111 and 3(5) of B.N.S. and Sections 66(D) of I.T. Act.

¶14

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the petitioner along with others has assaulted the police while they were attempting to apprehend them. It is further alleged that from the possession of this petitioner, two mobiles, one sim and various A.T.M. cards were recovered.

¶15

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37155 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026 2/3

¶17

petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only two A.T.M. cards have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner, out of which one belongs to the petitioner and another is that of his father. It has further been submitted that the witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel. Though a case has been framed that altogether 12 A.T.M. cards were recovered from the possession of this petitioner but there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has committed any A.T.M. fraud or has cheated anybody through those A.T.Ms. Only material is the confessional statement of the petitioner recorded in the police custody. It has further been submitted that though the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of four cases but none is of similar nature. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.02.2026.

¶18

Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the application for bail.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37155 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026 3/3

¶21

bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna City in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 56 of 2026.

¶22

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶23

lata/- U T

Devpujan Yadav @ Devpujan Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devpujan Yadav @ Devpujan Ray 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

Arun Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Chandrabali Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ishwar Ravidas @ Raja @ Md. Raja Vs The State of Bihar

Mahendra Rai @ Mahendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Alok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shubham Singh Vs The State of Bihar