Patna High Court
Sanoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond and specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanoj Kumar, sought bail in connection with a case involving alleged joy‑firing at a marriage, where the victim Lucky Kumar was injured. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 238 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Sections 25, 9 and 27 of the Arms Act, but the petitioner claimed the allegations were vague and that co‑accused persons had already confessed and were granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court noted the petitioner’s clean antecedent, the grant of anticipatory bail to similarly situated co‑accused, and the lack of specific incriminating allegation against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court ordered bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail/anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the allegations and the conduct of co‑accused.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 9
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 238, 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Arms Act
- clean antecedent
- joy firing
- FIR
- co‑accused confession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26116 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2024 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sanoj Kumar Son of Visheshwar Sahani Resident of village - Kanshpakari,
P.S.- Madhuban, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 290 of 2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 238, 3(5) of B.N.S. and
Sections 25, 9, 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on
15.07.2024 at about 22:00 P.M., the informant, S.I. Anil Kumar
Das, submitted his written report before the Officer-in-charge,
Madhuban P.S., alleging therein that on 15.07.2024 at 17:30
P.M., informant along with other police officials proceeded for
patrolling and in the course he was informed to verify Sanha no.
435/24 and then reached at the place of occurrence and came to
know that on the last night on 14.07.2024, there was marriage
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26116 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
2/4
ceremony of daughter of one Suresh Sahni. Thereafter, all F.I.R.
named accused persons including present petitioner gathered
with arms to make joy firing and after some distance in
intoxication they began to joy firing and in due course of tug of
war, one Lucky Kumar sustained gun shot injury and became
injured. It is also alleged that injured Lucky Kumar has been
brought to Patna for treatment and on enquiry of relatives of
Lucky Kumar, they did not give any satisfactory reply regarding
gun firing and blood stained was found over the earth and same
has been cleaned to cause disappearance of the evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and the allegation as alleged in
the FIR is forged and fabricated and the petitioner has not
committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is
no specific allegation of firing attributed against the petitioner
rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is
further submitted that during the course of investigation co-
accused persons were apprehended, namely Raja Sahani @ Raja
Babu and Raja Kumar and their statement were recorded in
paragraphs nos. 21 and 27 of the case diary in which they have
confessed their guilt in the present case and they have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26116 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
3/4
categorically stated that they have fired upon the victim. Apart
from aforesaid co-accused persons, namely, Jitendra Kumar @
Jitendra Sahani and Arvind Kumar @ Rijhan have been granted
anticipatory bail vide orders dated 17.12.2025 and 15.05.2025
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 55349 of 2025 and
13269 of 2025 respectively by different Co-ordinate Benches of
this Court.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that petitioner has clean antecedent and similarly
situated co-accused persons have been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court
and co-accused persons have confessed their guilt in the present
case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or
surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days
from the date of receipt of the order, 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 the learned
Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, East Champaran, Motihari in
connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 290 of 2024, subject
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26116 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
4/4
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and with other 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his 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
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)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.