Patna High Court
Soman Lal Dev @ Soman Kumar @ Soman Kumar Lal DevversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 1 subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.
Summary
The petitioners, Soman Lal Dev and Lal Saheb Lal Dev, sought anticipatory bail in connection with PS Sonki Case No. 108 of 2024, which alleged offences under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act (B.N.S.). The prosecution alleged that the petitioners assaulted a woman’s husband, with Lal Saheb allegedly inflicting a head injury using a sharp weapon. The petitioners contended that the allegations were false, that there was a counter‑case and compromise, and that the charge under Section 110 B.N.S. was non‑compoundable. The court noted the seriousness of the injuries but considered the petitioner's clean antecedent and the lack of corroborative evidence. Applying Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., the court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 1 with specific conditions, while dismissing the bail application of petitioner No. 2 as it was not pressed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC given the alleged offences.
- Whether the alleged offences, including the one under Section 110 B.N.S., are non‑compoundable and affect bail eligibility.
- Whether the absence of corroborative injury evidence impacts the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act
- non‑compoundable offence
- assault
- grievous injury
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81758 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2024 Thana- Sonki District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Soman Lal Dev @ Soman Kumar @ Soman Kumar Lal Dev S/o Lal Saheb
Lal Dev Resident of Village- Mahapara, PS- Sonki, Distt.- Darbhanga
2. Lal Saheb Lal Dev S/o Late Brahamdev Lal Dev Resident of Village-
Mahapara, PS- Sonki, Distt.- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shambhu Nath Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners
submit that he shall not press the bail application of the
petitioner no. 2 namely, Lal Saheb Lal Dev.
3. The application on behalf of the petitioner no. 2,
namely, Lal Saheb Lal Dev, stands dismissed as not pressed.
4. The present petition now only survives for the
petitioner no. 1 namely, Soman Lal Dev @ Soman Kumar @
Soman Kumar Lal Dev.
5. The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection
with Sonki P.S. Case No. 108 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81758 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 303(2), 324(4) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
6. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused person were
assaulting her husband and when she tried to save her husband,
the co-accused, Lal Sahab Lal Dev gave a blow on her head
with sharp cutting weapon causing grievous injury while the
other took away her gold chain.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case and the entire allegations are false and frivolous. It has
further been submitted that there is a case and counter case for
the same occurrence and subsequent thereto parties have also
compromised among themselves however one of the sections
being under 110 of the B.N.S., is not compoundable. It has
further been submitted that the allegation levelled against the
petitioner no. 1 is not supported by any corroborating injury to
be found on the informant Kajal Kumari and her husband. It has
lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
8. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submitted that the injured Kajal Kumari (informant) has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81758 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
sustained fracture of parietal bone and left squamous temporal
bone. Though the same is attributed to the petitioner no. 2
whose bail is not pressed.
9. Considering the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into account the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner no. 1 namely Soman
Lal Dev @ Soman Kumar @ Soman Kumar Lal Dev, is directed
to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or
surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Sonki P.S. Case No.
108 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of BNSS as well as subject to the
following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial
and shall cooperate in the investigation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81758 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioner
will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the trial
court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of
the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of
the above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of
or in the name of verification.
10. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
11. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…