Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application for the deceased petitioner and granted anticipatory bail to the remaining petitioners subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners Sonu Kumar, Binit Kumar and Aditya Kumar sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged robbery, assault and firearm injury under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. During the pendency of the application, petitioner Lalu Yadav died, and the petitioners moved to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with respect to him, which the court permitted, dismissing the petition as to Lalu Yadav. The court examined the allegations, noting that the injury reports suggested simple blunt-force injuries contrary to the claim of firearm discharge, and considered the petitioners' clean antecedents. After hearing both sides, the court granted anticipatory bail to the remaining petitioners, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each and compliance with Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The order also warned that the trial court may cancel the bail if the petitioners fail to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of offences under IPC and the Arms Act.
- Whether the application for anticipatory bail can be withdrawn with respect to a petitioner who died during pendency.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352, 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- withdrawal of application
- death of accused
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60175 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
1. Sonu Kumar S/o Late Arun Prasad R/o Village- Akala Bigha, (Dayalpur),
PS- Goshi, Dist- Jehanabad
2. Lalu Yadav S/o Gurkun Yadav R/o Village- Akala Bigha, (Dayalpur), PS-
Goshi, Dist- Jehanabad
3. Binit Kumar @ Binit Raj S/o Mantu Prasad R/o Village- Akala Bigha,
(Dayalpur), PS- Goshi, Dist- Jehanabad
4. Aditya Kumar S/o Mantu Prasad R/o Village- Akala Bigha, (Dayalpur), PS-
Goshi, Dist- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar Deo
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Choubey Jawahar- A.P.P.
Mr.Bhavesh Kumar Sah
Mr.Rakesh Bihari Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
permission to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner no.2, namely, Lalu Yadav, who left for
his heavenly abode during pendency of instant anticipatory bail
application.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60175 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
2/5
withdrawn with respect to petitioner no.2, namely, Lalu Yadav.
5. The rest petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 303(2),
74 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 are persons with clean antecedent
and the informant alleges that her son (Nagendra) and daughter
in-law (Mahima) were going to the bank to deposit Rs.2 Lacs
which they had received after selling the land. Further, they
were intercepted by Sonu and Guddu, who demanded the money
on objection, both threatened by gun, thereafter Lalu and
Manish tried to snatch the bag containing money from her
daughter in-law. On protest, Sonu and Guddu fired causing
firearm injury on head of her son, thereafter other named
accused persons came and looted the money, chain and
mangalsutra of her daughter in-law and Aditya and Sonu also
assaulted them by rod causing injury.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant on account of dispute relating to land. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60175 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
3/5
FIR, it would manifest that the petitioners were known to the
informant and her son. It is also submitted that it does not
appear probable that a person who was known to the victim
would have committed such an occurrence of causing firearm
injury to the son of the informant and at the same time would
only have assaulted her daughter in-law leaving a witness
against themselves. It is further submitted that though allegation
is of firing, but the same is exaggerated and ornamental and
from the injury report of the son and daughter in-law of the
informant, it wold manifest that the injury suffered by them has
been opined to be simple caused by hard and blunt substance.
8. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory
bail application, but then, fairly submits after perusing the case
diary that the injury suffered by Nagendra has been opined to be
simple caused by hard and blunt substance and the injury of
Mahima also has been opined to be caused by hard and blunt
substance, but then, it is recorded that the injury may be simple,
on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that as far as allegation of firing is alleged,
the same gets belied by the injury report and the injuries have
been opined to be simple. The learned A.P.P. further submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60175 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
4/5
if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners may
abscond on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that petitioners will not abscond rather
will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on
anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with
Goshi P. S. Case No.223 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
10. The application stands allowed.
11. However, it is made clear that in the event, if
any application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the
learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioners, despite
giving assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the
investigation or are not presenting themselves as and when
required, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioners after recording reasons.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60175 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
5/5
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
Police Station through the learned trial Court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…