Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Mandal @ Sone Lal Mandal @ Sone Lal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35426 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-435 Year-2024 Thana- ALAMNAGAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Mandal @ Sone Lal Mandal @ Sone Lal Kumar Son of Gore Lal Mandal Resident of Mohalla- Gaushala, Ward No.- 07, P.S.- Chausa, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Braj Kishore Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 435 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that on 11.11.2024 at around 12:30 PM, his 16-year-old daughter Babita Kumari left home for Bajraha Chowk to study but did not return by 4:00 PM. While searching for her, he came to know that she had spoken to Sonu Mandal on mobile phone before leaving home. He visited Sonu Mandal's house but his mother abused and threatened him. Bulbul Devi also abused him
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35426 of 2025(3) dt.10-09-2025 2/3 over the phone.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner has committed no offence and the allegations levelled against him are entirely false, fabricated, and without any basis. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not apprehended at the place of occurrence, and there is no eye-witness or statement of any person claiming to have seen the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident. Moreover, the petitioner was neither seen at the informant's house nor ever seen in the company of the victim girl at any point of time. It is also submitted that the victim girl was not recovered from the custody or residence of the petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. In case diary, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has been enclosed, wherein she has categorically stated that nothing wrong was happened with her. She further stated that she had voluntarily gone to visit the fair with the petitioner, who is her cousin brother-in-law. The victim has clearly denied
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35426 of 2025(3) dt.10-09-2025 3/3 any allegation of kidnapping and affirmed that she had not been taken away by force or deceit.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and considering the period under custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail after framing of charge, if not framed on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Udakishunganj, Madhepura in connection with Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 435 of 2024. (S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- U T