Patna High Court
Sonu Kumar @ Sonu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, subject to revocation if he is found to have been an employee of the electricity board.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 583 of 2025) for alleged offences under sections 303(2), 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, based on the seizure of a liquor van he owned. He argued that he was merely the vehicle owner, had no knowledge of the alleged crime, was not an employee of the electricity board, and had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle could not absolve him of responsibility. The Court, noting the petitioner’s clean antecedent and his claim of non‑employment with the electricity board, granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including a personal bond, sureties, regular court appearances, and a clause that the bail would become null if it later emerged that he was an electricity board employee. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the owner of a vehicle used in the alleged offence despite lack of direct participation.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of not being an employee of the electricity board and his clean criminal record justify granting bail.
- What conditions may be imposed under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 303(2), 317(2), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- electricity board employee
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25754 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-583 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Singh S/o Binda Singh R/o Village - Nathachak, P.S -
Fatwah (Kacchi Dargah), District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel
for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 583 of 2025 for the offence
registered under sections 303(2), 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that the Police during night patrolling and on secret information,
reached the place and found some persons present there with
liquor van. They were identified as Hanuman @ Viranjan
Kumar, Ranjit Prasad and Sudil Kumar besides unknown
associate. From the pick up van, there was recovery/seizure of
high tension electric wires (approx. 33,000 volts). This led to the
FIR.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25754 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
only because of the fact that he owns the vehicle which actually
is driven by Mantu Kumar, got implicated. He was busy with
the treatment of his mother who is seriously ill and had no
knowledge about the said occurrence. With the help of
paragraph 12, his submission is that at no point of time, he was
serving with the electricity board and it is an erroneous
observation on the part of learned Sessions Judge. The
submission is that if the said statement is found to be incorrect,
if relief granted, it be declared infructuous. The last submission
is that the petitioner do not have criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that he being
the owner of the vehicle, cannot exonerate himself from the
responsibility.
6. Considering the submissions aforesaid as put
forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
APP, the petitioner do not have criminal antecedent, statement
has been made that he has never been an employee of electricity
board. Though he is an owner, an undertaking has been given
that he shall be diligently appearing in trial, in that background,
this Court is inclined to grant him the anticipatory bail with
conditions.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25754 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
7. However, if it is found that he is/was an employee
of electricity board, the order shall become infructuous.
8. Let the petitioner in the event of arrest or surrender
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Barh (Patna) in connection with
Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 583 of 2025 subject to condition as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the petitioner, who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for next six months to mark
attendance and at the end of the period, the certificate be
submitted to the Court;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25754 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…