Govind Sonkar @ Govinda Sonkar @ Babua Khatik v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10928 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2026 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Govind Sonkar @ Govinda Sonkar @ Babua Khatik S/o Late Bharat Sonkar R/o Village- Yusuf Chak Takiya, P.S- Sasaram Town, Dist- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026

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 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act read with Section 37 of the Bihar Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of three cases out of which one case is under the Excise Act and is in custody since 12.01.2026.

4. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that he along with the police force reached the place of occurrence where they saw three accused drinking and on seeing the police, the accused started fleeing, but a country made pistol fell from the waist of one of the accused, further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10928 of 2026(5) dt.17-07-2026 2/3 petitioner was arrested. It is next submitted that though it is alleged that country made pistol and 11 cartridges were recovered but then from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the same does not disclose that it was recovered from the petitioner. It is further submitted that charges have been framed by an order dated 24.04.2026, but then the order has not been annexed. It is next submitted that till date, no prosecution witness has been examined.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail application of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026.

7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his brother namely Raju Kumar.

8. It is made clear that the learned Trial Court, before releasing the petitioner, shall verify that the charges have been framed against the petitioner or not and if it is found that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10928 of 2026(5) dt.17-07-2026 3/3 charges against the petitioner have not been framed, in that event the present order shall not be given effect to. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T