Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31238 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-389 Year-2025 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== SONU YADAV @ SONU KUMAR S/O Shree Shivshankar Singh @ Shivshankar Yadav @ Shiv Shankar Yadav R/O Vill.- Ahiyapur, P.S.- Rajpur, Dist.- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 16.12.2025, in connection with Rajpur P.S. Case No. 389 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 15.12.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons fired upon the informant and his relative Ramakant Pathak. The informant sustained a gunshot injury in his right leg and fell down on the spot and his relative

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31238 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 2/2 received a bullet injury in his head and fell down on the road and later on he died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.

5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned APP for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he fired upon the informant and his relative due to which his relative died at the spot.

6. Considering the nature of allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Rajpur P.S. Case No. 389 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T