Patna High Court
Sonelal PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that, given the petitioner’s extended custody, the precedent of bail to a co‑accused, and the petitioner’s undertaking, bail should be granted with conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonelal Prasad, was in judicial custody for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 506, 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, arising from a shooting incident on 16‑08‑2022. He sought bail, arguing that he had already been detained since 10‑10‑2024, that a co‑accused (Pappu Prasad) had been released on bail in a similar case, and that he would appear diligently in trial. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner’s role was clearly detailed in the FIR. The Court considered the length of custody, the precedent of bail to a co‑accused, and the petitioner’s undertaking to cooperate, and decided to grant bail subject to strict conditions. The bail order required a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, regular appearance before the trial court and police station, and prohibitions against tampering with witnesses or committing further offences. The bail was thus granted with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the IPC and Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prolonged pre‑trial detention and the grant of bail to a co‑accused justify release on bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s undertaking to appear and comply with conditions is sufficient to mitigate the risk of tampering or further offences.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 341, 506
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- witness tampering
- criminal procedure
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72741 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-413 Year-2022 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Sonelal Prasad S/o- Bujhawan Prasad Village- Kharhar Police station-
Minapur District-Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar S.K., Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 09-01-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar S.K. learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP
representing the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with
Minapur P.S. Case No. 413 of 2022 for the offence punishable
under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 506, 302 and 120(B) of
the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, lodged
on 17.08.2022 by the informant, Birendra Prasad.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
tht on 16.08.2022, while his son, namely Prakash Chandra and
his cousins were returning from ‘Rampur Hat’ after selling
vegetables, 18 named and 4-5 unknown persons surrounded
them. On the order of Nanpat Prasad, Bujhawan Prasad, Punit
Prasad, Krishnadeo Prasad to shoot them, Pappu Prasad @
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72741 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/4
Panchu Kumar, Sonelal Prasad (petitioner herein) Sujeet Kumar
and Subodh Kumar fired from pistol, which however did not hit.
However, the gunshot of Pappu Prasad @ Pancu and Sonelal hit
the chest and back of his son Prakash Chandra. As the
companion of his son raised alarm, thereafter the accused
persons fled away. He further alleged that he received
information from mobile phone, went with the villagers and saw
the escaping persons and identified them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has already suffered by being in custody since 10.10.2024.
Further, Pappu Prasad who is similarly situate has already been
granted relief by a coordinate Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 4587 of
2023. The charges have been framed in the matter and further,
he was witness in the two of the cases against the informant and
the father of the informant and as such implication.
5. Though, he concede that the petitioner delayed
going into judicial custody despite named in the F.I.R. The
submission is that if granted relief, he shall be diligently
appearing in trial.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting
that his role is specified in the F.I.R.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72741 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
3/4
that he has suffered by being in custody since 10.10.2025,
charge has been framed, similar situate Pappu Prasad is now out
on bail as recorded above, an undertaking has been given that he
shall be diligently appearing in trial, in that background, this
Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8 (East), Muzaffarpur, in
connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 413 of 2022 subject to
the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to
show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every month till the conclusion of the trial to mark
his attendance and at the end of the period a certificate be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72741 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
4/4
submitted before the Trial Court;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…