Sonu Kumar Yadav @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2850 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2024 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Sonu Kumar Yadav @ Sonu Kumar S/O Ravindra Yadav @ Centre Ji Resident of village - Bhawanipatti, Ward No. 04, Police Station - Rajeshwari (Chhatapur), Distt.- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-02-2025 Heard Mr. Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 306/ 2024 dated 03.10.2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 109(1)/3(5) of the BNS and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, while son of the informant reached near Hasanpur canal, this petitioner along with coaccused, Subhash Thakur came and this petitioner took out a pistol and fired upon the chest of the informant's son.

4. The main submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel are that at the relevant time of the commission of the alleged occurrence, there was a dispute in between the petitioner and the victim's family due to which the petitioner has been falsely roped in the alleged occurrence and the FIR itself shows that the informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence and it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2850 of 2025(2) dt.15-02-2025 2/2 is not believable that the victim could have disclosed the name of the assailant in injured condition and as per the FIR, the occurrence took place at late night, so, in such a situation the injured cannot be deemed to be able to identify the assailant.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner.

6. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR.

7. There is direct allegation against this petitioner and he allegedly caused firearm injury at the chest of the informant's son and as per the impugned order, firearm injury has been found on the chest of the victim and the petitioner has criminal antecedents of three cases.

8. Considering the seriousness of the allegation, this court is not inclined to accept the petitioner's bail prayer. Accordingly, the same stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J) BKS/- U T