Patna High Court
Vishal SoniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the petitioner was named in the FIR, the trial had started, and no fresh ground for bail was established.
Summary
Vishal Soni was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a murder allegedly committed with hired criminals. He applied for bail for the third time, claiming he was falsely implicated and that there was no material linking him to the crime beyond his name in the FIR. The State and the informant opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and that the trial had already commenced. The High Court noted that the petitioner was named in the FIR, the trial was underway, and no fresh ground for bail was shown. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, clarifying that its observations were limited to this bail matter and did not prejudice the trial's merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the murder charge and the commencement of trial
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication constitutes a fresh ground for bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- false implication
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22998 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2023 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Vishal Soni S/O Bharat Soni @ Bharat Sah Resident of Village- Shahpur, P.S-
Manjhagragh, Distt.- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Adesh Raj Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. This is the third attempt on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No.
195 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 28.06.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 25275 of 2024, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner; learned APP for the State and
learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 195
of 2023 registered for the offence punishable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22998 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The deceased was killed by hired
criminals. The petitioner is one of the criminals
who was hired along with three other criminals
and they went on two motorcycles and they
killed the deceased. The petitioner is in jail
since 17.08.2023.
4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated and except for the fact
that he has been named in the FIR, there is no
material to connect him with the crime. He also
submits that Mithun’s father was killed and
therefore, the petitioner has been falsely
implicated.
5. Learned APP for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have opposed
the prayer for bail.
6. As the petitioner is named in the
FIR and has participated in the killing of the
deceased, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the application stands
dismissed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the trial out of seven witnesses, four witnesses have been
examined but learned counsel for the informant submits that
five out of seven witnesses have been examined.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that
the trial has started and no fresh ground for grant of bail is made
out, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22998 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…