Sonu Sahni @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70008 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2019 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SONU SAHNI @ SONU KUMAR S/o Late Lakhindra Sahni R/o VillageKolhua Paigambarpur, Imlie Chowk (Dadar), P.S.-Ahiyapur, DisttMuzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. Ii, Advocate :

Mr. Pranav Kumar II, Advocate :

Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.12.2021 and has antecedent of six cases.

The informant alleges that he along with his friend received injuries in their chest and they were allegedly chased by the accused persons in the night on a secluded road while returning to their home.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70008 of 2022(2) dt.29-04-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who had committed the occurrence, it is next submitted that petitioner has antecedents, as such, he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that police after investigating arrested the petitioner finding his complicity in the occurrence. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail six months after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) GauravSinha/- U T