Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30768/2026bail granted

Sonelal Yadav @ Sona Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-06Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30768 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-658 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Sonelal Yadav @ Sona Prasad S/O Late Harkhit Yadav Resident Of VillageMadhopur, P.s.- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Aman Ambasta, Advocate Mr.Shivjee Singh, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard Mr.Aman Ambasta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel for the Informant and Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 10.12.2025 in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 658 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 03.12.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and read with section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other co-accused persons in furtherance of common intention have given bullet shot injury to the son and niece of the informant with a view to kill them, which hit head and chest of son and niece of informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it appears from the FIR that although the petitioner is named

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30768 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 2/3 in the FIR but there is specific allegation of firing attributed against co-accused person, namely, Suraj Kumar. Thereafter, as per allegation in the FIR that all the accused persons including the petitioner have also fired upon the victim, who happens to be the son of the informant and it appears from the FIR itself that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has participated in the present crime in question, apart from that, the petitioner carries two more cases other than the present one but he fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in both the cases, and rest one case is pending for consideration, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Barh, District Patna in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 658 of 2025,with the following conditions:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30768 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 3/3 (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) 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.

(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

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