Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted in view of the material on record.
Summary
Sonu Kumar, husband of a deceased woman, was implicated in a murder case (Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No. 450 of 2024) under Sections 302, 304(b), 34 and 120(b) of the IPC. Although he was not originally named in the FIR, the informant later identified him as an accused. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the FIR naming was erroneous. The court examined the material on record and concluded that the circumstances did not merit the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application was rejected and the petitioner was ordered to surrender within two weeks and apply for regular bail, failing which the police would arrest him.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the murder charges under IPC Sections 302, 304(b), 34 and 120(b).
- Whether the subsequent addition of the petitioner’s name in the FIR affects the discretion to grant anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(b), 302, 304(b), 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- IPC
- bail
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89840 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-450 Year-2024 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Sonu Kumar S/o- Pradeep Sharma @ Pradeep Singh Village- Mobarak Chak,
P.S. Muffasil, Dist. Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 09-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection
with Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No. 450 of 2024 instituted under
Sections 302, 304 (B), 34 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C.
3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner is the
husband of the deceased and he is alleged to have killed his
wife.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. as accused, subsequently,
the informant has named the petitioner as one of the accused
saying that he was mislead in exonerating the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89840 of 2024(5) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
6. Considering the material available on record, this
Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner in the present case.
7. The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly,
rejected.
8. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court
below within a period of two weeks from today and seek regular
bail, if so advised, failing which the Superintendent of Police,
Gaya will take all steps for the arrest of the petitioner.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, Gaya through FAX for its compliance
forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.