Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9863 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sonu Kumar Son of Pramod Patel Resident of Village- Khalwa Khap Tola, P.S.- Nautan, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 434 of 2025 for the offence under sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 303(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 28.08.2025.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, who is the Priest of the temple, alleged that he had become fed up with the conduct of Sonu Kumar and Asgar Miya. It is alleged that both of them used to sit in the veranda of the temple and consume ganja and liquor. Further, it is alleged that they would use filthy and abusive language towards girls and women passing through the area. When the informant objected to their conduct, he was assaulted by them, and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9863 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026 2/2 was forcibly taken from him. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Priest has enmity with the petitioner and false allegation has been made.
5. Learned APP on the other hand has taken this Court to paragraph - 3 to show that he has criminal antecedent which includes Sections 379 and 354(B) amongst other of the Indian Penal Code and he is in the habit of doing such things.
6. Taking into account the submission of the parties, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
5. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T