Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33786 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Singh Son of Ramjatan Singh Resident of VillageKarari, Piparia, P.S.- Piparia, District- Lakhisarai 2.
Rahul Singh @ Rahul Kumar Son of Ramkishun Singh Resident of VillageKarari, Piparia, P.S.- Piparia, District- Lakhisarai 3.
Satyam Kumar @ Satyam Singh Son of Ramkishun Singh Resident of Village- Karari, Piparia, P.S.- Piparia, District- Lakhisarai 4.
Bhogad Singh @ Kunal Singh Son of Ramkishun Singh Resident of VillageKarari, Piparia, P.S.- Piparia, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025 registered on 17.03.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 352, 351 (2), 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. As per the FIR, on 15.03.2025 at 09.00 P.M, while the informant was closing his shop, two accused persons Chiku Singh and Dipu Singh came in a drunken state and started abusing him and when he opposed, they started to assault the
2/4 informant with lathi, on his head causing injury. Thereafter, these petitioners including 5-7 unknown persons joined them and assaulted him and his family member and they also tried to outrage the modesty of his wife and then fled away from the place of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the specific allegation of over-act is against Chiku Singh and Dipu Singh, while allegations on these petitioners is general and omnibus in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a delay of two days in registering the First Information Report and no plausible reasons has been stated for such delay. Counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that petitioner no. 1 has no criminal antecedent whereas petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 have got one criminal antecedents each on which they are on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the specific allegation of over-act is against the co-accused, Chiku Singh and Dipu Singh and further the petitioners undertake that if they are charge-sheeted, they will cooperate with the trial, this Court is inclined to grant the
3/4 privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No.29 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative/ known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/ personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
4/4 (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J) shikha/suryadev U T