Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Das @ Sonu Kumar Das v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17987 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2024 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Das @ Sonu Kumar Das S/O Suraj Kumar Das @ Suraj Das Resident of village - Budh Nagar, Road No.- 1, P.S- Kankarbagh, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rakesh Bihari Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-03-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the state.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kankarbag PS Case No. 237 / 2024 dt. 04.04.2024 registered under Section 302, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case the brother of the informant was working as a vendor in Anamika Indane Gas Agency, Kankarbag and was shot dead by two unknown persons riding on a motorcycle on 04.04.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. is against unknown and the name of the petitioner has surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused Sandeep
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17987 of 2025(2) dt.20-03-2025 2/3 Kumar Yadav and Rahul Kumar Das which has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he has no concern with the alleged occurrence.
5. Learned counsel for the informant argued that there was previous dispute between the deceased and the co-accused Rahul Kumar Das. A conspiracy was hatched at the house of Prince Raj in which the petitioner also participated. During course of investigation it has come to light that petitioner, who happens to be brother-in-law (sarhu) of Rahul Kumar Das gave a contract to the shooter for killing the deceased for Rs. 30000/- out of which Rs. 5000/- was paid to the shooter and it was promised that Rs. 25000/- shall be paid after the work is completed. The informant's brother was shot dead by the co-accused Sandeep Kumar Yadav. Regular bail application of the co-accused persons have been rejected by this court vide Cr. Misc. Nos 69147 of 2024 , 59089 of 2024 & 78762 of 2024.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the fact that during course of investigation prima facie it came to light that the petitioner had given contract for killing of the deceased and bail applications of other co-accused persons have already been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17987 of 2025(2) dt.20-03-2025 3/3 rejected by this court, as such, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.
7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after one year from today if the trial does not record any substantial progress.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T