Sonu Kumar @ Himanshu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81189 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2024 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== SONU KUMAR @ HIMANSHU KUMAR S/O SANJAY RAY @ SANJAY KUMAR R/O VILL.- RUSTAMPUR., P.S- GARKHA, DISTT.- SARAN. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shrinandan Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ranvijay Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307, 120B and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. While the informant was going to Chapra for making pairvi in a case, on the way, the petitioner along with other co-accused is said to have assaulted him by means of iron rod and hockey stick sustaining grievous injury in his leg.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81189 of 2024(4) dt.21-02-2025 2/2 physical possession. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has three criminal antecedents and has been languishing in custody since 11.09.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the petitioner along with other co-accused brutally assaulted the petitioner sustaining grievous injury in his leg, hence the petitioner does not deserve bail.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T