Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a murder case under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that he abducted the informant's son on 20 July 2023, after which the boy was found dead with firearm injuries. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, there was no eye‑witness, and no material linked him to the crime, citing that a co‑accused had been granted bail. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s role in taking away the victim and his prior criminal antecedent. The court, after considering the facts, concluded that the petitioner’s involvement and antecedent warranted denial of anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the murder and arms offences.
- Whether the material on record is sufficient to justify granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail denial
- section 302
- section 34
- section 27
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22522 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2023 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Sonu Kumar S/o Sri Shambhu Ray R/o Village- Bara Jagannath, P.S.-
Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Somali Acharya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.07.2023
at about 10 AM, this petitioner came to the house of the
informant and took away her son with him and stated that co-
accused Santosh Kumar has called him. Thereafter, son of
informant did not return and even after search, he couldn’t be
traced. In the morning, informant got information through
newspaper and other sources that one person has been shot dead
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22522 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
2/3
in village Bhaw Chhapra and when the informant went to
S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur, she identified the dead body is of her
son who had sustained fire arm injuries on his head. Informant
claims that all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including this
petitioner and four to five unknown persons, have committed
murder of her son.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness of the
alleged occurrence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this
case merely on suspicion and there is no direct or indirect
material to show complicity of this petitioner in the alleged
occurrence. It is further submitted that co-accused Kaushalya
Devi, having similar and identical allegations, has already been
granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 30.01.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 89987 of 2024.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that bare perusal of the F.I.R.
depicts that it was this petitioner who took away son of
informant from the house and later on, this dead body was
found. Petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused Kaushalya
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22522 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
3/3
Devi since case of the petitioner is entirely on a different
footing. Petitioner has got one criminal antecedent.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, fact that it was this petitioner who took away son of
informant and later on, his dead body was found and criminal
antecedent of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.