Sonu Quraishi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38184 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sonu Quraishi S/o Mukhtar Quraishi Resident of Village- Muradabad, PSSasaram (M), District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2025 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 09.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191, 192, 132, 109, 121(1), 121(2), 125(a), 125(b), 262, 263 of the BNS.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons is said to have attacked on the police party and assaulted them with bricks and stones and also tried to snatch their arms.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the

2/4 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 offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of disclosure made by the local chowkidar and except the aforesaid, no other material has come during investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and injury inflicted upon the injured person is found to be simple in nature.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons has attacked the police personnels and apart from that the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of disclosure made by local chowkidar and injury inflicted upon injured persons is found to be simple in nature, let the

3/4 petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 the learned C.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ 482(2) of the BNSS and with other following conditions:- 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his 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

4/4 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) priyanka/- U T