Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75351/2025bail rejected

Sanoj Kumar @ Sanoj Mahto @ Bambam Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-10-31Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75351 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2024 Thana- CHERIYA BARIYARPUR DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Sanoj Kumar @ Sanoj Mahto @ Bambam Singh Late Mantun Mahto @ Hiyala Mahto Resident of Vill. Karod Khanjahanpur ward no. 18, P.S. - Cheriya Bariyarpur, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 31-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 351(3) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 07.11.2024, Sanoj Mahto (petitioner herein), Pappu Paswan and two unknown persons came on a motorcycle, demanded extortion, and, in the meantime, the petitioner shot dead the informant's son.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75351 of 2025(2) dt.31-10-2025 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of shooting the deceased dead which is corroborated by the post-mortem report and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also there being direct material against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T