Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62384 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2025 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Ray S/o Raju Ray R/o village- Dighi Kala Purvi, PS- Sadar Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
For the State :
Ms. Renuka Ratnakar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar Hajipur P.S. Case No. 469 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 132, 3(5) of BNS, Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, on 13.06.2025, the informant along with other police officials went to the house of wanted accused/ Rajiv Mali of Sadar P.S. Case No. 468 of 2025 to apprehend him but he was not found at his house. It is further
2/4 alleged that at that time, informant received information that said Rajiv Mali along with three others has been seen going towards Malmalla Chowr. On the said information, informant and other police officials reached there but accused persons started firing upon the police team. It is alleged that one semiautomatic country made pistol and five round live cartridges were recovered from possession of co-accused Rajiv Mali. One country made katta and one live cartridge were recovered from possession of co-accused Pramod Kumar. Apprehended coaccused Pramod Kumar has disclosed the name of petitioner, who is said to have fled away along with other. FIR has been registered against four accused persons including the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that due to local rivalry, petitioner and co-accused Pramod Kumar have strained relation and on account of said reason, co-accused Pramod Kumar has taken the name of petitioner with an intent to settle his personal score and harass the petitioner. He further submits that except disclosure of apprehended co-accused Pramod Kumar, there is nothing on record to connect the present petitioner with the alleged occurrence. He further submits that no incriminating article has
3/4 been recovered from possession of the petitioner. Petitioner bears criminal antecedent of five cases, out of which in four cases he is on bail. Learned counsel further submits that due to criminal antecedent of the petitioner, he has falsely been implicated in this case.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that apprehended co-accused Pramod Kumar has disclosed the name of petitioner and hence, petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the petitioner, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Sadar Hajipur P.S. Case No. 469 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
4/4 B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) shahzad/- U T