Sonu Sahni @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42029 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2019 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Sonu Sahni @ Sonu Kumar S/o Late Lakhindra Sahni Resident of VillageKolhua Paigambarpur, Imlie, Chowk (Dadar) P.S. Ahiyapur, DistrictMuzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II- Advocate Ms. Kumari Seema Singh- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.70008 of 2022 and the same was rejected by an order dated 29.04.2023 with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail six months after framing of charge. It is next submitted that in terms of the liberty granted to the petitioner by order dated 29.04.2023 in Cr. Misc. No.70008 of 2022, the instant bail application has been filed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42029 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 2/3 renewing the prayer for bail. It is submitted that charges against the petitioner was framed by an order dated 29.08.2023. It is next submitted that order framing charge has been annexed as Annexure- P/4 to the supplementary affidavit, but then, the order framing of charge of the petitioner is of different case. The learned counsel next submits that inadvertently, Annexure- P/4 to the supplementary affidavit was annexed when order dated 27.08.2023 ought to have been annexed.

4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in connection with Sessions Trial No.517 of 2022 arising out of Kanti P. S. Case No.434 of 2019, subject to the condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his brother in-law, namely, Rajesh Kumar.

6. The application stands allowed.

7. It is made clear that the learned trial Court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify that as to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42029 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 3/3 whether charges against the petitioner has been framed in the instant case or not and in the event, if it is found that charges have not been framed, in that event, the present bail order shall not be given effect to, but if charges have been framed, then bail bonds of the petitioner shall be accepted forthwith.

8. It is further made clear that if the learned trial Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release is trying to delay the trial in any manner, the learned trial Court shall forthwith cancel his bail bonds after recording reasons. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T