Patna High Court
Sonu Kumar Das @ Chiranjeet Kumar Das @ Chanarjit Das @ Charanjit DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Kumar Das, was arrested on 22 March 2025 in connection with FIR No.87/2025 alleging assault on an informant’s son under Sections 109, 103(1), 61 and 3(5) of the BNS. He contended that the FIR was false, filed two days after the alleged incident without explanation, and that the informant was not an eye‑witness. The petitioner highlighted his clean antecedent and argued that the charge sheet did not specifically allege any overt act by him, only a generic accusation against all accused. The State opposed bail, but the court, noting the lack of specific incriminating material, the delay in filing the FIR, and the petitioner’s clean record, ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The bail order was directed to be implemented without further delay for verification.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the FIR alleging assault under Sections 109, 103(1), 61 and 3(5) of the BNS.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged lack of specific allegations against the petitioner justify granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the nature of the alleged offence warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 109, 3(5), 61
Subjects
- bail
- false FIR
- assault
- criminal procedure
- BNS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12491 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sonu Kumar Das @ Chiranjeet Kumar Das @ Chanarjit Das @ Charanjit Das
S/o- Ram Chandra Das @ Rama Das R/v- Jhakhara Padauliya Coloney Ps-
Pipra Kothi Dist- East Champaran,Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 30-04-2026 Heard Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and Mr.Ajay
Kumar No. 2, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
22.03.2025 in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 87 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 14.3.2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 109,103(1),61 and 3(5) of BNS.
3.Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith
other co-accused persons assaulted the informant’s son by
various weapons due to which he sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation
as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12491 of 2026(4) dt.30-04-2026
2/4
has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. From a
bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the date of occurrence as
alleged in the FIR is 12.03.2025 but the present FIR has been
instituted on 14.03.2025 after delay of two days without giving
any explanation of delay and before lodging of the FIR the
inquest report was prepared as well as postmortem was also
conducted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present FIR has been instituted afterthought only after seeing
the postmortem report only to falsely implicate the petitioner in
the present occurrence and it appears from the FIR itself that the
informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence.
Further submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears
that although the petitioner is named in the FIR but there is no
specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against
the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation
against all the accused persons including the petitioner and
specific allegation against the petitioner is that he assaulted with
Dabiya on the head of the son of the informant, apart from that,
other co-accused persons have also assaulted to the son of the
informant with knife, iron rod and other equipments. Further
submits that co-accused person, namely, Ram Chandra Das @
Rama Das has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12491 of 2026(4) dt.30-04-2026
3/4
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.65445 of 2025 and the police, after investigation, submitted
chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody
since 22.03.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP
for the State have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact and petitioner has
clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned J.M.F.C., East Champaran, Motihari in connection with
Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 87 of 2025, with the following
conditions:-
(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12491 of 2026(4) dt.30-04-2026
4/4
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…