Patna High Court
SONU YADAV @ SONU KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the nature of the allegations involving murder and use of arms warranted continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Yadav, was arrested on 16‑12‑2025 in connection with FIR No. 15‑12‑2025 alleging that he, along with co‑accused, fired on an informant and his relative, causing the latter’s death. He sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated. The informant’s counsel and the State opposed bail, emphasizing the direct allegation that the petitioner discharged fire resulting in death. The Court examined the seriousness of the charges under the B.N.S., 2023 and the Arms Act and found the nature of the offence grave. Consequently, the Court refused the bail application, ordering the petitioner to remain in custody.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged firing resulting in death under the B.N.S., 2023 and the Arms Act.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- murder
- serious offence
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31238 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-389 Year-2025 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar
======================================================
SONU YADAV @ SONU KUMAR S/O Shree Shivshankar Singh @
Shivshankar Yadav @ Shiv Shankar Yadav R/O Vill.- Ahiyapur, P.S.- Rajpur,
Dist.- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the
Informant and Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
16.12.2025, in connection with Rajpur P.S. Case No. 389 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 15.12.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 61(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along
with other co-accused persons fired upon the informant and his
relative Ramakant Pathak. The informant sustained a gunshot
injury in his right leg and fell down on the spot and his relative
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31238 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/2
received a bullet injury in his head and fell down on the road
and later on he died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as
learned APP for the State, on the other hand, vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that
there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that
he fired upon the informant and his relative due to which his
relative died at the spot.
6. Considering the nature of allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with Rajpur P.S. Case No. 389 of 2025 pending in
the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.