Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14528 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2024 Thana- PARSABAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Sonu Kumar S/o- Devendra Paswan Resident of Village- Khaprail Chak PsParsa Bazar PS Parsa, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 16-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This is the first regular bail application submitted by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 289 of 2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In this case, the name of the deceased is Sanjeev Kumar. It is alleged that on 13.06.2024 about 03:30 P.M. the present applicant make a call to the mother of the deceased and thereafter, as stated by the petitioner the deceased went to his house. Later on near the house of the present applicant, the deceased was found in unconscious condition and subsequently, he died. The matter was reported by the mother of the deceased Archana Devi, on the basis of such offence has been registered. During the course of investigation, the applicant got arrested on 30.08.2024 and since then he is in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14528 of 2025(5) dt.16-05-2025 2/2 custody.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is innocent and is falsely implicated in this case due to some dispute with the family members of the deceased. He further submits that the deceased himself is a drunker and habitual drug addict. Therefore, he himself consumed some substance due to which he died. Lastly, he submits that applicant is in custody since 30.08.2024, trial will take time. Therefore, on these grounds, he may be granted benefit of bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondentState opposes the prayer of bail.

6. Considering the submission made by the counsels and particularly considering the statement of witness Lalan Yadav and Rinki Devi, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail at this stage to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to revive the same after the examination of the above mentioned witnesses before the Trial Court.

7. With the aforesaid liberty, the present petition stands rejected.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) Siddharth Soni/- U T