Patna High Court
Sonu Chaudhary @ Sonu Kumar @ Amit RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Chaudhary, was implicated in a FIR alleging that he, along with a co‑accused, extorted money by coercing a student to record an inappropriate video of a teacher and later threatened to publish the video unless she complied with further demands. The FIR charges under Sections 76, 79, 308(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act were filed. The petitioner, claiming a clean record, applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the video was not disseminated from his phone and that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed the bail, noting that similar applications by co‑accused had been rejected and emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences. After considering the submissions, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the nature of the allegations warranted the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in light of the alleged offences?
- Do prior rejections of anticipatory bail for co‑accused influence the decision on the petitioner’s application?
- Do the allegations under the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act and the IT Act preclude anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Information Technology Act — s. 67A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- sexual exploitation
- video voyeurism
- Information Technology Act
- Bihar Negotiable Substances Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.748 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2025 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Sonu Chaudhary @ Sonu Kumar @ Amit Ranjan S/o- Purendru Chaudhary
Resident of village- Kamlabari Goth PS- Jaynagar, Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tushar Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 76, 79,
308(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 67(A) of
the Information Technology Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that she was taking coaching at Rakesh Mathematics
Coaching Centre where Rakesh used to act inappropriately with
her and on objection used to assault her. It is next alleged that
Kuldeep and petitioner are landlords of the Coaching Centre and
they also used to act inappropriately with the informant. It is
alleged that Kuldeep and petitioner asked the informant to make
video of Rakesh so that they can extract Rs.20 lakhs from him
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.748 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
2/4
and also threatened that if she will refuse, she will be killed,
under threat, the informant kept the mobile in the classroom
with video recording on. Further, Rakesh who was in the class
came and started acting inappropriately with her but then saw
the mobile, thus, took the mobile and started fleeing but was
caught by petitioner and Kuldeep who snatched the mobile from
him and transferred the video in their mobile and handed over
the mobile of the informant to her after deleting the video.
Further, based on the video, Kuldeep and petitioner started
forcing the informant to come and establish physical relation or
else the video would be made viral but she fled to Nepal on
10.08.2025 and thereafter came to know that Kuldeep and
petitioner made the video viral on the facebook and the viral
photographs are part of the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that Kuldeep and petitioner threatened her to
make inappropriate video with Rakesh with a view to extort
money from him and when Rakesh realized that his
inappropriate acts are being video recorded, hence, he started
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.748 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
3/4
fleeing with the mobile when he was caught by Kuldeep and
petitioner and they transferred the inappropriate video in their
mobile and deleted the video from the mobile of the informant
and handed over the mobile of the informant to her after
deleting the video in her mobile and thereafter were forcing her
to establish physical relation and later she came to know that the
inappropriate video has been made viral. It is fairly submitted
that during the course of investigation, it transpired that the
video was made viral not from the mobile of the petitioner.
5. Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State
vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner and submits that earlier Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep
Kumar Singh had approached this Court seeking anticipatory
bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 85021 of 2025 and the same came to
be rejected by an order dated 17.02.2026. Similarly, Rakesh
Ranjan Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav had also approached
this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.
73837 of 2025 and the same also came to be rejected by an
order dated 18.11.2025. It is further submitted that the informant
who was a sudent used to go to coaching where she was
threatened by Kuldeep and petitioner to make inappropriate
video with Rakesh with an intent to extort money from Rakesh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.748 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
4/4
who was earning as a teacher and under the threat the informant
even obeyed them but later they started exploiting the informant
threatening that the video would be made viral in the event she
does not establish physical relation. It is, thus, submitted that it
is not a case for anticipatory bail.
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 petitioner in connection with
Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 276 of 2025 pending in the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…