Allowed¶18

Sunil Rai Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Jul 2026CR. MISC./44266/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC CRL.MISC No.44266/2026; Sunil Rai Yadav v. State of Bihar; bail allowed 07-07-2026 (Ashok Kumar Pandey J); Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 128/2026, East Champaran; Sections 303(2) & 317(5) BNS 2023 (stolen bike apprehension); argument on non-compliance with Section 105 BNSS in seizure; Rs. 10,000 bail bond + two sureties; JMFC 1st Class Motihari; custody since 16.04.2026; no criminal antecedent claimed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bail 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, 1st Class, Motihari, East Champaran, in connection with Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 128 of 2026. ¶18

Sunil Rai Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehended with a stolen bike and implicated in Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 128 of 2026 for offences under Sections 303(2) and 317(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, should be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court enlarged the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari, East Champaran, in connection with Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 128 of 2026.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL GRANTED — Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44266 of 2026 (order dated 07-07-2026, Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Pandey, J., oral order): Petitioner Sunil Rai Yadav, arraigned in Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 128 of 2026 (District East Champaran) for offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 317(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 on the prosecution case that he was apprehended with a stolen bike, enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari. Counsel urged false implication, no recovery from petitioner's possession, seizure witnesses being police personnel without compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS, recovery purportedly effected within Chhauradano police station premises, triability by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, absence of criminal antecedent and judicial custody since 16.04.2026; learned APP opposed. The Court, 'considering the facts and circumstances of the case', directed enlargement on bail; no precedent was cited and no issue of seizure regularity was separately adjudicated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44266 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2026 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East

¶3

Champaran

¶4

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

¶5

Sunil Rai Yadav S/O Ramshray Rai Yadav Resident of village - Beldhari, P.SSemrongarh, Dist- Bara (Nepal)

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶9

2 07-07-2026

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶11

APP for the State.

¶12

The petitioner has prayed for bail registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 317(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶13

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the petitioner was apprehended with a stolen bike.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and the police have not complied with Section

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44266 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026 2/2

¶16

105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. He further submits that from perusal of the seizure list, it will transpire that the place of recovery is the premises of Chhauradano police station. He further submits that the seizure list itself goes to show that the recovery was made from the premises of the police station. He further submits that the present case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Moreover, a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 16.04.2026.

¶17

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

¶18

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 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, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 128 of 2026.

¶19

Sudhanshu/-

¶20

U T

Sunil Rai Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Rai Yadav 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

Mahavir Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Indrajeet Kumar @ Karu Rai @ Kuru Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Sabita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Renu Kumari Vs The State of Bihar