Patna High Court
Sonu Jha @ Sonu Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the seriousness of the offences and the reliance on confessional statements, despite their inadmissibility, did not warrant the privilege of bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Sonu Jha and Sudhir Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case involving alleged possession of 200 ml of liquor, 500 ml of beer, and three empty cartridges. The allegations were based on confessional statements made by co-accused persons while in police custody, which the petitioners argued lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing that the case involved offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, the Arms Act, 1959, and the Noise Pollution Rules, and that the investigation was at a nascent stage. The court noted that confessional statements, though inadmissible, indicated the petitioners' names and that the petitioners had not demonstrated any special circumstances warranting bail. Consequently, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the stage of investigation outweighed the petitioners' claim of clean antecedent. The application for anticipatory bail was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, the Arms Act, and Noise Pollution Rules.
- Whether confessional statements made by co-accused in police custody have any bearing on the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedent and lack of arrest at the spot justify the issuance of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(9), 27, 35
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- excise law
- arms act
- noise pollution
- clean antecedent
- evidentiary value
- police custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4896 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-991 Year-2025 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. Sonu Jha @ Sonu Kumar Jha S/O Ajay Jha R/O Vill.- Mohanpur, Ward no.
14, P.S.- Nauhatta, Dist.- Saharsa
2. Sudhir Kumar @ Mahadev Kumar @ Mahadev S/O Uttam Lal R/O New
Colony, Ward no. 9/13, P.S.- Saharsa Sadar, Dist.- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, Sections
27, 25(9) and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 as well as Section 6 of
the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 200 ml. of liquor along with 500 ml. of beer and
three empty cartridges.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4896 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
submitted that petitioners came to be implicated based on the
confessional statement of Pramod Kumar and Nishant Kumar in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the
eye of law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that it is not a
case under the Excise Act rather three empty cartridges are also
alleged to have been recovered from the place of occurrence and
the name of the petitioners transpired in the confessional
statement of the accused who were apprehended from the spot.
It is fairly submitted that though confessional statement does not
have any evidentiary value but then investigation of the case is
in its nascent stages and from perusal of the pleadings made in
the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that
petitioners have not pleaded anything regarding their
credentials.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection
with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 991 of 2025 pending in the
Court of learned Special Judge (Excise-II), Saharsa/Successor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4896 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…