CR. MISC./48283/2026 of Tuntun Yadav @ Saurabh Raj @ Santu Singh @ Sintu Singh Vs The State of Bihar on 20 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

20-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024 lodged on 23.06.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, FIR has been lodged against nine named accused persons excluding the petitioner. It has been alleged by the informant that when the informant’s husband watering the plants near the door, then two persons came in motorcycle and fired upon the informant’s husband. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital where the Doctor declared him dead. It has been further alleged that all the accused persons under a conspiracy have killed the informant’s

husband due to the reason that the informant’s husband was doing business of purchasing and selling the land.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and he is also not named in the FIR. He submits that name of the petitioner has figured in this case by virtue of confessional statement made at the later stage. He submits that in the entire case diary, there is no material against the petitioner, but subsequently in the supplementary case diary, his name has been inserted by virtue of the confessional statement of the co- accused, but said confessional statement is without corroboration. He further submits that the only thing which is against the present petitioner is that his criminal antecedent is not clean as there are four cases pending against him. He specifically submits that in the impugned order, there are four other cases mentioned, but the fourth case is not correct as the Alamganj P.S. Case No. 571 of 2024 has been wrongly typed instead thereof, Alamganj P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024 is the correct name which is the present case. Counsel submits that petitioner is ready to fulfill all conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner but fairly submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and in the case diary, there is no material against the petitioner, but in the supplementary case diary, confessional statement has come which is without corroboration.

6. In the light of the submissions made, it transpires to this Court that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has come in this case by virtue of the confessional statement and in the present case he is in custody since 19.09.2025.

7. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, let the above-named petitioner be granted bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Patna City, in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 480(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with further conditions that:- (I) One of the bailors should be the family member of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his bona fide; (II) the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court

on each and every scheduled date, and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without any plausible reason/ explanation shall be resulted into cancellation of his bail bonds by the Trial Court itself; (III) petitioner is not absconding in any cases pending against him which are as follows:- (a) Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 372 of 2020

(b) Janipur P.S. Case No. 975 of 2021

(c) Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 686 of 2024

(d) Pipariya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025

Anjali/Somesh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U T