Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 and specified conditions.
Summary
Sonu Kumar was arrested on 3 April 2024 in connection with a case (PS Kotwali, case No. 349 of 2023) involving alleged murder, attempt to murder and possession of arms. The prosecution alleged that the accused opened fire on the informant’s father and brother, resulting in death and injury, and charged him under Sections 302, 326, 307, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC and Sections 27, 25(1‑b)(a), 25(1)(ii) and 35 of the Arms Act. The petitioner contended that he has a clean record, was not named in the FIR, and was implicated only through confessional statements of co‑accused, noting that several co‑accused had already been granted bail by the court. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail. Considering the petitioner’s clean antecedent, lack of direct naming in the FIR, and the precedent of bail to similarly situated co‑accused, the court ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and specific conditions. The order also directed the lower court to verify his antecedent and to cancel bail if he absconds or tampers with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences charged under the IPC and Arms Act
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of direct naming in the FIR justify bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)(a), 25(1)(ii), 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 307, 326, 34
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- Arms Act
- murder
- attempt to murder
- criminal conspiracy
- clean antecedent
- false implication
- co-accused bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81005 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2023 Thana- KOTWALI District- Munger
======================================================
Sonu Kumar S/o- Santosh Yadav Resident of Village-Shankarpuur PS-
Mufasil, Dist- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Nagendra Prasad, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
03.04.2024 in connection with Kotwali (Vasudeopur) P.S. Case
No. 349 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 04.08.2023 for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 326, 307, 120(B)/34 of the IPC
and Sections 27, 25(1-b)a, (1)(ii)/35 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, the criminals have
open fired upon the father and brother of the informant due to
which his father died and his brother got severely injured.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81005 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/4
F.I.R and his name has been transpired during investigation on
the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused persons,
namely, Santosh Kumar and Raja Kumar. Co-ordinate Bench
while granting bail to the co-accused, namely, Kundan Kumar
vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3784 of
2024 has recorded in paragraph no. 3 that "I have seen the
report of the Superintendent of Police, Munger dated
12.09.2024. He has reported that one of the accused Deepak
Kumar is serving in C.R.P.F. and on the date of occurrence, he
was serving in the State of Assam. He further reported that there
is no material to connect the co-accused Deepak Kumar with
the crime." which suggest that the petitioner has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the police
after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the
petitioner. He further submits that similarly situated, co-accused,
namely, Karan Kumar has been granted bail by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 85680 of 2024 and another co-accused, namely,
Anurag Kumar @ Sajo has also been granted bail by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 passed
in Cr.Misc. No. 31389 of 2025. The petitioner is in custody
since 03.04.2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81005 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/4
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner has clean antecedent, he is not named in the
F.I.R and similarly situated co-accused persons have been
granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions
Judge, Munger in connection with Kotwali (Vasudeopur) P.S.
Case No. 349 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81005 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
4/4
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…