Allowed¶8

Sudeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Jan 2026CR. MISC./85869/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the four terms and conditions set out in the order. ¶8

Sudeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the four terms and conditions set out in the order.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner may be released on bail in connection with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 145 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S.

¶2

Court's answer

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned, Gayajee, Gaya, subject to stated conditions (one bailor a close relative; physical presence before the Court on each trial date; cancellation of bail bond on absence on two consecutive dates or breach of terms; trial-court verification of criminal antecedents without delaying acceptance of the bail bond).

¶6

Key takeaways

Any observations made in this order shall have no bearing during the trial.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted. The High Court of Judicature at Patna (Sourendra Pandey, J) allowed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 85869 of 2025 on 09-01-2026. Petitioner Sudeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar, in custody since 22.06.2025 in Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 145 of 2025 dated 21.06.2025 (G.R. 4147/25, District Gaya), registered for offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S. over the alleged theft of a gold chain and gold earrings worth Rs. 1,11,000/- along with utensils kept for the informant daughter's marriage, was directed to be released on bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each. Conditions imposed: one bailor to be a close relative; presence before the Court on every trial date; bail bond cancellable on absence on two consecutive dates or breach of terms; and trial-court verification of criminal antecedents, acceptance of the bond not to be delayed for verification. Counsel had submitted that the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance taken, that no T.I.P. was conducted for the recovered articles, and that the petitioner has clean antecedents. Observations in the order to have no bearing at trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85869 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2025 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

SUDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP KUMAR Son of Ramvali Kewat R/O Village - Dharmuchak, P.S.- Neemchak Bathani, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

¶12

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 145 of 2025 dated 21.06.2025 (G.R. 4147/25) registered for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S.

¶13

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the petitioner had stolen a gold chain and gold earrings worth Rs. 1,11,000/- and certain utensils kept for the marriage of the daughter of the informant.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It has next been submitted that the petitioner and the informant are the co-villagers and on account of some personal

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85869 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026 2/3

¶16

dispute, he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was not apprehended at the place of occurrence even the recovery has been shown from the house of the petitioner is false and it is common household items. It has next been submitted that no T.I.P. has been conducted in order to ascertain of the veracity of the articles recovered from the house of the petitioner is same that of the informant. Learned counsel has further been submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and cognizance of the offence has already been taken against him. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in custody since 22.06.2025.

¶17

5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶18

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Gayajee, Gaya in connection with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 145 of 2025, subject to the following terms and conditions :-

¶19

(i) One of the bailors shall be a close relative of the

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85869 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026 3/3

¶21

petitioner.

¶22

(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶23

(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.

¶24

(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶25

7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made

¶26

in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.

¶27

8. The application stands allowed.

¶28

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

¶29

Gautam/-

¶30

U T

Sudeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeep Kumar @ Sandeep 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

Sahnawaj Mansuri Vs The State of Bihar

Sachin Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Satish Kumar Gautam @ Satish Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Taufik Ali Vs The State of Bihar

Gulshan Kumar @ Rifle Paswan Vs The State of Bihar