Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in the present circumstances.

Summary

The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case (Barh P.S. Case No.540 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 351 and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with three others, assaulted an informant and his family and snatched a golden chain. The petitioner claimed innocence, alleging false implication due to village politics, while the State highlighted direct allegations and corroborative witness statements. The High Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the circumstances insufficient for such relief. However, the Court directed the trial court to entertain a regular bail application if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, allowing a prompt decision on that application.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the facts and allegations.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail upon surrender.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • regular bail
  • criminal procedure
  • false implication
  • village politics
  • Bihar Negotiable Substances Act
  • sections 126,115,109,303,351,3

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32041 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-540 Year-2025 Thana- BARH District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Sonu Kumar S/o Rajendra Mahto Resident of Village- Saidpur, P.S.- Barh,
                 District- Patna
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Anil Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-05-2026                      Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable in connection with Barh

                   P.S. Case No.540 of 2025 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109,

                   303(2), 351 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 pending before the court

                   of ACJM-1st, Barh, Patna.

                                 3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged

                   against four named accused persons including the petitioner

                   with allegation that the accused persons had assaulted the

                   informant and family members by katta due to which injury

                   sustained. The further allegation of snatching golden chain is

                   also there.

                                 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

                   that both the parties are resident of same village and co-villager
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32041 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
                                                       2/2




                     and known to each other. He further submits that petitioner has

                     been falsely implicated due to dirty village politics.

                                  5. Learned Counsel also submits that antecedent of

                     the petitioner is not clean and there is one criminal antecedent of

                     the petitioner. He further submits that informant is a short

                     tampered man and with a malafide intention, petitioner has

                     been dragged in the present case.

                                  6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                     bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the

                     petitioner. The statement of the witnesses at different paragraphs

                     of case diary have supported the version of the FIR.

                                  7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is

                     not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore

                     the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

                                  8. However, trial court is directed to consider the

                     regular bail application of the petitioner, if he surrenders within

                     6 weeks from today and prays for regular bail, then trial court

                     shall pass order without being prejudice of the present order

                     preferably on the same day.



                                                               (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.