Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12734 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-450 Year-2025 Thana- KARAKAT District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Yadav, aged about 27 Yrs., (Male), Son of Rampati Singh, Resident Of Village - Kirahi, P.O. - Kirahi, P.S. - Karakat, Dist. - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
XXX Son of YYY R/o Village - Kirhi, P.S. - Karakat, Dist. - Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Parma Nand Singh, Advocate For the Informant :
Mrs. Shrishti Rani, Advocate Mrs. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate For the State :
Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-04-2026 Heard Mr. Parma Nand Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mrs. Shrishti Rani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 450 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 126(2) of the BNS, Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(v) (2) of the SC/ST Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner along with other co-accused persons, had allegedly committed rape upon the minor grand daughter of the informant, who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12734 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026 2/3 belongs to Scheduled Caste.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. General and omnibus allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. The minor victim girl, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has stated that co-accused Ravindra Yadav had committed rape upon her and she has not supported that the present petitioner had tried to commit rape with her. Petitioner has clean antecedent. On these grounds, petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR, I find that general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. The minor victim girl, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has given information that co-accused Ravindra Yadav had committed rape upon her and she has not supported that the present petitioner had tried to commit rape with her. In absence of any allegation made by the victim, I am of the opinion that petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12734 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026 3/3 has, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is pending, in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 450 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioner as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically. (Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T