Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38923/2025dismissed

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2025-12-04Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38923 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2024 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Sharma S/O Sri Satyendra Sharma R/o Vill.- Bharat Keshari, P.S.- Jalalpur, Dist.- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the IPC.

3. The informant lodged an FIR stating therein that on 10.01.2024 at about 6:35 PM, while he was travelling on his motorcycle, four miscreants on two motorcycles intercepted him. They looted his mobile phone, 4,000 in cash, his ₹ motorcycle, and a bag containing important documents, and fled away from the spot.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38923 of 2025(4) dt.04-12-2025 2/2 Nothing was recovered from his possession and his name has figured in confessional statement of co-accused Sandeep Kumar, who has been granted regular bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has two criminal antecedents of similar nature. The confessional statement of Sandeep Kumar is leading to recovery of a mobile set. Sandeep Kumar confessed his guilt and also named the petitioner and other accused persons.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

7. If the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below, the same benefit as granted to co-accused Sandeep Kumar should also be given to the petitioner. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T