Patna High Court
Sonal Kumar Sharma @ Sonal Sharma @ Sonal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that regular bail could not be granted to the petitioner at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonal Kumar Sharma, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 126(2), 308(4), 324(5), 352, 351 and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable S. He had been in custody since 8 December 2025 and had six prior criminal cases. The FIR alleged that he, along with an associate, extorted money at gunpoint and threatened the informant, but no extortion was actually paid. The petitioner argued that the offences carried a maximum punishment of seven years, that anticipatory bail had earlier been permitted and then withdrawn, and that he could file a Section 35(3) bail petition after charge‑framing. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s antecedent record and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The Court declined to grant regular bail, allowing the petitioner to renew the application after charge‑framing, and noted the difference in antecedents between the petitioner and a co‑accused who had been granted bail.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under the specified sections of the Bihar Negotiable S given the nature of the offences and his antecedent record.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
- Whether the earlier order permitting anticipatory bail and its subsequent withdrawal affect the present bail application.
Subjects
- regular bail
- anticipatory bail
- antecedent criminal record
- extortion
- threats
- Section 126
- Section 308
- Section 324
- Section 352
- Section 351
- Section 3
- Section 35(3)
- High Court
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10244 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Sonal Kumar Sharma @ Sonal Sharma @ Sonal Kumar S/o Ranjeet Sharma
Resident of village- Morwa Rai Tole, Police Station- Musarigharari, District
Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam
Mr.Rajesh Kumar
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Jha
Mr.Navin Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Tajpur P. S. Case
No.134 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 308(4), 324(5), 352, 351, 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2025 and has antecedent
of six cases. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the instant FIR has been instituted with
respect to offences offences which carries punishment of seven
years and less. It is next submitted that petitioner had earlier
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10244 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/4
moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc.
No.74496 of 2025 and the same was permitted to be withdrawn
with liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the
concerned Superintendent of Police/ Investigating Officer under
Section 35(3) B.N.S.S. by an order dated 19.11.2025. It is
submitted that before the petitioner could have filed the petition
under Section 35(3) BNSS, he came to be arrested in a different
case and thereafter was remanded in the instant case on
08.12.2025.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the F.I.R., it would
manifest that informant alleges that on 10.08.2025, while he was
returning from Tajpur when petitioner and Sumit intercepted
him and demanded five percent extortion in all schemes on gun
point and threatened to kill him if demand is not made. Further,
on 12.08.2025, the informant received threatening call from the
accused at night and on the same night the petitioner and Sumit
came to his house and abused him and asked the informant to
come out of the house and when he did not come out they
vandalized his vehicle and fled away.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates and
submits that the offences for which the instant FIR has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10244 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
3/4
instituted carries punishment of seven years and less. It is also
submitted that allegation is of demanding extortion but then no
extortion was paid. It is next submitted that petitioner has six
cases but then the case has been instituted by different persons
at the instance of the informant who is the Mukhiya.
6. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail
application. The learned A.P.P. submits that petitioner has
antecedent of six cases and if privilege of regular bail is granted
the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
8. The prayer of the petitioner for regular bail stands
rejected.
9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
10. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submits that Sumit Kumar Sharma
has been granted the privilege of regular bail by order dated
19.11.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.73524 of 2025 passed by a learned
Coordinate Bench, on which the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that Sumit has antecedent of one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10244 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
4/4
case only whereas petitioner has antecedent of six cases.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…