Patna High Court
Sonu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail may be granted despite the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s antecedents, subject to a cash bond, sureties, and the trial court’s power to cancel if the petitioner attempts to delay the trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Singh, was charged under IPC sections 326, 307, 120B and Arms Act section 27 for allegedly causing firearm injury. He has eight prior criminal cases, but his name does not appear in the FIR; it was mentioned only in the confessional statement of co‑accused Bhajju Thakur, who had earlier been granted regular bail. The petitioner sought bail, arguing that the precedent of bail to Bhajju Thakur and his own willingness to cooperate warranted release. The State opposed the bail on grounds of the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s antecedents. The High Court, after considering the submissions, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a cash bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties, one of whom is his father, and retained the power to cancel bail if the trial is delayed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to a person charged with grievous hurt, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy and illegal possession of arms, given his prior criminal antecedents.
- Whether the fact that the petitioner’s name appears only in a co‑accused’s confessional statement suffices to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307, 326
Subjects
- bail
- IPC 326
- IPC 307
- IPC 120B
- Arms Act 27
- criminal antecedents
- confessional statement
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83971 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Sonu Singh Son of Ram Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Kuvar Village
-Lattipur PS -Bathnaha District -Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 326, 307 and 120B of IPC
and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of eight cases and allegation is of
causing fire-arm injury to the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired in the
confessional statement of Bhajju Thakur. It is further submitted
that Bhajju Thakur had approached this Court seeking regular
bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 69538 of 2024 and the same was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83971 of 2025(2) dt.27-02-2026
2/3
permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to Bhajju Thakur to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge, thereafter
Bhajju Thakur moved this Court seeking regular bail by filing
Cr. Misc No. 55856 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed
by an order dated 8-8-2025 since charges against him were
framed. It is thus submitted that person, in whose confession the
name of the petitioner transpired, has been granted the privilege
of regular bail, as such the petitioner be also granted the said
privilege. It is further submitted that charges against the
petitioner also stands framed by an order dated 21-6-2025 as
recorded in the order impugned. It is next submitted that even
Bhajju Thakur had criminal antecedents. It is submitted that if
privilege of bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will
not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his
innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83971 of 2025(2) dt.27-02-2026
3/3
pending/successor court in connection with Chhauradana P.S.
Case No. 84 of 2024.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
father, i.e., Ram Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Kuvar.
8. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release
is trying to delay the trial in any manner, the learned trial court
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…