Patna High Court
Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Yadav @ Rishiranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was granted because the prosecution’s case lacked direct evidence against the petitioner and the circumstances did not warrant continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, sought bail in a session trial (No. 187 of 2026) for alleged offences under Sections 302, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution’s case relied on the dying declaration of an informant who was allegedly abducted, assaulted and later died, naming twelve accused, including the petitioner. The petitioner argued that there was no eye‑witness, the FIR was lodged more than 24 hours after the body was recovered, and the case rested solely on circumstantial evidence and a confessional statement by co‑accused, with no other material against him. He also highlighted that similarly situated co‑accused had been granted bail in earlier judgments and that he had been in judicial custody since 17 January 2026. After hearing both sides, the Court found the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the prosecution’s case is based mainly on circumstantial evidence and a confessional statement of co‑accused.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of an eye‑witness affect the bail decision.
- Whether the grant of bail to similarly situated co‑accused in earlier cases is a relevant factor.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- confessional statement
- delay in FIR
- IPC sections 302, 120B, 34
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18984 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2024 Thana- LAKHAURA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Yadav @ Rishiranjan Kumar Son of Late Nand Lal Rai
@ Nandlal Prasad Yadav Resident of Village - Naurangiya, P.S. - Lakhaura,
Dist. - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Session Trial No. 187 of 2026 arising out of Lakhaura P.S.
Case No.62 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that when
the informant was sitting at his door, accused persons called his
son and took him for a feast. After considerable time, when the
informant called on his son’s mobile, it was switched off. In
morning, search was made and he was found in injured
condition and he has named 12 persons. Subsequently he died.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18984 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/3
petitioner has submitted that in this case there is no eye-witness.
As far as the statement of the deceased is concerned, from
perusal of the FIR itself it is clear that the body was recovered at
04:00 AM on 12.06.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on
13.06.2024 at 08:30 AM, after delay of more than 24 hours. It
has further been submitted that this case is based on
circumstantial evidence. During course of investigation, the
petitioner along with others have given their confessional
statement. Save and except the confessional statement there is
nothing against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that
after investigation police has submitted final form whereas the
learned Jurisdictional magistrate relied on the information of the
police and has taken cognizance. It has further been submitted
that cognizance is not a material for considering the bail. In
entire case diary, save and except confessional statement, there
is nothing against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that similarly situated co-
accused have been granted bail by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No.
70038 of 2024 with Cr. Misc. No. 71156 of 2024 and by the
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No.
83633 of 2024. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.01.2026.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18984 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/3
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
counsel for the Informant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, East Champaran,
Motihari, in connection with Session Trial No. 187 of 2026
arising out of Lakhaura P.S. Case No.62 of 2024.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.