Patna High Court
Sonam KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonam Kumari, was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of a deceased person allegedly killed in her house with the involvement of her son. She applied for regular bail for the second time, arguing that the trial had been delayed, charges were framed, and a co-accused’s confession exonerated her. The State opposed, contending that she had called the victim to her house and participated in a pre‑planned killing, and that the co‑accused’s statement does not absolve her. The Court considered the gravity of the offence, the petitioner’s alleged participation in the conspiracy and actual killing, and the fact that charges had been framed, and declined to revisit its earlier order. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the trial was directed to proceed without further delay.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder case under Sections 302/34 IPC given alleged participation in the conspiracy and actual killing.
- Whether the earlier denial of bail can be reviewed in view of trial delays and framing of charges.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Section 302
- Section 34
- conspiracy
- trial delay
- gender
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40398 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2024 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Sonam Kumari Saurabh Kumar @ Saurabh Saheb R/o Village-Chainpur
Baikunth Nagar, P.S- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. at present residing at
village-Panapur Kariat, P.S-Panapur, District-Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar
For the State : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail in connection with Kanti P.S. Case No. 244 of
2024 registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the IPC.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner has been
rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 59141 of 2024, which reads as follows:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Kanti P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024
registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the deceased
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40398 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
was called by the petitioner in her house and there the
deceased was killed. It has come during investigation
that the deceased was killed inside the house by the
petitioner and her son. The murder weapon has been
recovered from the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.
Ajay Thakur submits that the petitioner is a lady and in
the confessional statement of Saundarya Saurabh, it
has come that the deceased was killed by the
Saundarya Saurabh and not by the petitioner. The
petitioner has cleaned the blood stains in the house.
Petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the
informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and have submitted that it is the petitioner who had
called the deceased in her house and thereafter in a
planned manner, the deceased was killed by the
petitioner and her son. He further submits that the
exoneration of the petitioner by the co-accused will not
entitle her for grant of bail.
6. I have considered the submissions of the
parties.
7. Though the petitioner is a lady but in the
facts of the case when she has participated in the
conspiracy and the actual killing of the deceased, I am
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application for regular
bail is dismissed.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the trial has been delayed and after the order of this Court, the case
has been committed and the charges have been framed. Therefore,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40398 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
the petitioner deserves bail who is in custody since 12.05.2024.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and also the
fact that the charge has been framed, I am not inclined to review
my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
7. The learned trial Judge is directed to conclude the
trial at the earliest by giving short adjournment.
8. Learned counsel for the informant Mr. Ajeet Kumar
submits that the prosecution will produce the witnesses on the date
fixed by the learned Court below.
9. The S.S.P., Muzaffarpur is directed to ensure the
appearance of the witnesses in the trial so that the trial is not
delayed.
10. If the trial will be delayed by the prosecution, the
petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District Judge, Muzaffarpur and S.S.P., Muzaffarpur
forthwith through FAX or e-mail for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.