Uday Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84202 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2025 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

Uday Kumar S/o Ramji Sahni @ Ramjee Sahni R/o Village - Nishfi Mirjapur, P.S - Tajpur, District - Samastipur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rina Sinha, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 02-02-2026

¶11

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

¶12

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 309 (4) of the BNS.

¶13

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2025 while the informant was returning to Tajpur Branch after collection, three bikers intercepted him and at the point of pistol snatched one gold Hanumani locket and fled away.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants. During the course

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84202 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026 2/3

¶16

of investigation, one of the co-accused, namely, Sunny has given his confessional statement, on the basis of which the name of the petitioner has surfaced.

¶17

5. From perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court, it also transpires that the said locket was recovered from the possession of this petitioner.

¶18

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till today, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) either of the person or of the locket conducted, whereas the informant has merely stated that he identified the miscreants and has claimed that the said gold Hanumani Locket belongs to him. However, the same is not the subject matter of the alleged offence,

¶19

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 20.09.2025.

¶20

8. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.

¶21

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84202 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026 3/3

¶23

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-1st, Samastipur.

¶24

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶25

Jagdish/-

¶26

U T

Uday Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Kumar 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

Md. Rojit Uddin Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Babu Lal Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Aditya Kumar Roy @ Anshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramjee Prasad @ Ramji Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Indu Devi Vs The State of Bihar