Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32041 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-540 Year-2025 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== Sonu Kumar S/o Rajendra Mahto Resident of Village- Saidpur, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Barh P.S. Case No.540 of 2025 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 351 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 pending before the court of ACJM-1st, Barh, Patna.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against four named accused persons including the petitioner with allegation that the accused persons had assaulted the informant and family members by katta due to which injury sustained. The further allegation of snatching golden chain is also there.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that both the parties are resident of same village and co-villager

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32041 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/2 and known to each other. He further submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated due to dirty village politics.

5. Learned Counsel also submits that antecedent of the petitioner is not clean and there is one criminal antecedent of the petitioner. He further submits that informant is a short tampered man and with a malafide intention, petitioner has been dragged in the present case.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner. The statement of the witnesses at different paragraphs of case diary have supported the version of the FIR.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, trial court is directed to consider the regular bail application of the petitioner, if he surrenders within 6 weeks from today and prays for regular bail, then trial court shall pass order without being prejudice of the present order preferably on the same day.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Prakashmani/- U T