Sonal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7374 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-339 Year-2024 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai ====================================================== Sonal Kumar Son of Rama Shankar Chaudhary Resident of Village - Jairampur, P.S. - Bihpur, District - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-02-2025 Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 339 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 20.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, the co-accused, Manoj Kumar who happens to be the father-in-law of the petitioner got into an agreement with the informant for sale of land but after receiving the amount from the informant, he neither executed the sale deed nor returned the money.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
2/4 implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R that the petitioner is the son-in-law of the coaccused, namely, Manoj Kumar and the said Manoj Kumar had taken the amount from the informant. He further submits that as per the allegation in the F.I.R, the petitioner has prepared a conspiracy and sent away the accused persons from the Registry office and there is no allegation against the petitioner that the has taken any amount from the informant. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Sarita Devi who happens to be wife of the co-accused, Manoj Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 64314 of 2024 and another co-accused, namely, Chetna Sri who happens to be daughter of the co-accused, Manoj Kumar has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83704 of 2024.
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, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had taken any amount from the informant and the co-accused persons have been granted bail by
3/4 this Court, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 339 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other 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 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
4/4 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