Patna High Court – Orders
Ram Balak Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 8 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38017 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- Chhaudahi District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Ram Balak Yadav S/o Mahendra Yadav R/o Vill. - Pokhara, P.S. -
Bahadurpur Alauli, Distt.- Khagaria, State- Bihar, Indian Citizen
2. Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Yadav @ Alok Kumar Saxena @ Alok Saxena
S/o Ram Balak Yadav R/o Vill. - Pokhara, P.S. - Bahadurpur Alauli, Distt.-
Khagaria, State- Bihar, Indian Citizen
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birmani Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 08-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and perused the case diary.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with
Chhaurahi P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024, instituted for the offences
punishable under Sections 447, 387, 389, 506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, read with Sections 10, 13, 17, 18 and 20 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
16.03.2024 at about 23:00 hours informant received a call – who
is an owner of a brick kiln – from one of his employees, who
informed that nine people came on three motorcycles and
handed him over a letter of Comminist Party (Maovadi, North
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38017 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
2/6
Bihar, Central Zonal Committee) which contained a demand of
one lakh rupees by 26.03.2024. The letter was signed by one
‘Sanesh Bhagat’. Those people informed that the letter be
handed over to the owner of brick kiln. It was also said that if
the owner informs the incident to anyone or does not pay the
levy then there would be consequence of blasting with bomb.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No
incriminating material have been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners
also submits that the petitioners are not named in the FIR. Name
of the petitioners have transpired in this case on the basis of
confessional statement made by co-accused, namely, Sandeep
Yadav and the same has got no evidentiary value. The
petitioners have never made any demand of levy/ransom from
the informant or from any other person. It is further submitted
that the prosecution witnesses have not named the petitioners
and the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do
not describe about any involvement of the petitioners in
commission of the crime. The petitioners have been remanded
in this case on 04.12.2024 and have got one criminal antecedent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38017 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
3/6
in which they are on bail.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners and submits that
there is ample material against the petitioners in the case diary
to establish their active participation in the offence beyond the
reasonable doubt, coupled with the fact that the petitioners have
got one criminal antecedent and they have also confessed their
complicity in the alleged occurrence, which fact finds mention
at paragraph nos. 55 and 56 of the case diary. Learned APP for
the State further referring to Section 43-D (5) and 43-D(6) of the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 submitted that bail
must be rejected if there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accusation against person alleged of offences punishable
under Chapter IV and VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true.
Learned APP for the State further submitted that since police
after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 302/34,
120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22 of the UAP Act, prima facie, the involvement of the
petitioner in the alleged offences cannot be denied. Learned
counsel, therefore, contended that in the light of the present
facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the petitioner
for grant of bail may be rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38017 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
4/6
6. For better appreciation of the case, Section 43-D of
UAP Act, is quoted hereinbelow:-
” 43-D. Modified application of
certain provisions of the Code.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code or any other law, every
offence punishable under this Act shall be
deemed to be a cognizable offence within the
meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code,
and “cognizable case” as defined in that
clause shall be construed accordingly.
(2) ......... (4)
(5) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code, no person accused of
an offence punishable under Chapters IV and
VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released
on bail or on his own bond unless the Public
Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of
being heard on the application for such
release: Provided that such accused person
shall not be released on bail or on his own
bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case
diary or the report made under section 173 of
the Code is of the opinion that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against such person is prima facie
true.
(6) The restrictions on granting of
bail specified in sub-section (5) is in addition
to the restrictions under the Code or any other
law for the time being in force on granting of
bail.
(7) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail
shall be granted to a person accused of an
offence punishable under this Act, if he is not
an Indian citizen and has entered the country
unauthorisedly or illegally except in very
exceptional circumstances and for reasons to
be recorded in writing.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38017 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
5/6
7. Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act modifies the
application of the general bail provisions in respect of offences
punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UAP Act. From bare
perusal of Section 43-D(5) it is evident that the said Section puts
a complete embargo on the powers of the Court to release an
accused on bail. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab and Anr.[(2024) 5 SCC 403] has observed
that the often quoted phrase “bail is the rule, jail is the
exception” is not applicable in the cases under UAP Act. It is
further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against
such person as regards commission of offence(s) under Chapter
IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act, is prima facie true, such
person shall not be released on bail. After perusing the material
available in the case dairy as well as the report submitted by the
police under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., it appears that the
accusation against the petitioners is found, prima facie, true.
8. On perusal of the report sent by the learned Court
below, it appears that the trail is at the verge of conclusion and
the case is going on for defence evidence.
9. Having considered the rival submission of the
parties and the material placed on record, present stage of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38017 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
6/6
case as also taking into account the embargo put under Section
43-D(5) of the UAP Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail
to the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioners is, hereby, rejected.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T