Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28098 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2025 Thana- PACHMAHLA District- Patna ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Singh S/O Pramod Singh @ Pramod Kumar R/O Vill.- Nauranga, P.S.- Pachmahla, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2025 Today, the matter was listed under the heading "To Be Mentioned" for early hearing of the matter.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pachmahla P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 223(a), 132, 109(1), 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the petitioner along with other co-accused, namely, Monu have locked the house of one Mukesh Kumar Singh in connection with some monetary dispute and for verification of the same, when the

2/4 informant reached the place of occurrence, he found that main gate of the house of Mukesh Kumar Singh was locked and the informant in presence of the local people was trying to get the lock open but, in the meantime, co-accused, namely, Anant Singh, along with his 15-20 supporters came on the spot and asked the informant to leave the place and that he would resolve the matter himself and thereafter opened the lock of the said house and left the place of occurrence. The informant was taking the application of said Mukesh Kumar Singh and in the meanwhile, he got information that the co-accused, namely, Anant Singh had gone to the house of the petitioner and the informant immediately proceeded there. When he was about to reach the house of the petitioner, he heard the sound of firing and when he got close to the place of occurrence, he saw that co-accused, Anant Singh along with his supporters left the place of occurrence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that co-accused, namely, Anant Singh and his

3/4 supporters went to the house of the petitioner and his brother and they started firing. It is next submitted that no specific allegation of firing has been made against the petitioner. In this case, no any injury has been sustained by anyone. The petitioner is in custody since 13.02.2025 and has got eleven criminal antecedents in which he is on bail in ten cases and has been acquitted in one case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that co-accused has been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28570 of 2025.

6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Pachmahla P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025, subject to the following conditions: (I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of

4/4 the family of the petitioner.

(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T