Patna High Court
CR. MISC./38240/2025 of Sonu Kumar @ Divanshu Kumar @ Divyanshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 23 June 2025
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38240 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2020 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Divanshu Kumar @ Divyanshu Kumar S/o Manoj Patel Resident of Vill-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2
23-06-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38240 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2020 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran ======================================================Sonu Kumar @ Divanshu Kumar @ Divyanshu Kumar S/o Manoj PatelResident of Vill- Bhawanipur Jirat, P.S.- Chhatauni, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMAORAL ORDER
Heard Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit, learned Additional PublicProsecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chhatauni P.S.Case No.336 of 2020,FIR dated13.09.2020 registered for the offences punishable underSections 341,323,324,307,34 of IPC.
3. As per allegation, all the FIR named accusedpersons were standing at the gate and when the informant wentto give key, accused Yuvraj Kumar gave knife blow twice on theback of informant and all other accused persons assaulted theinformant with fist and leg.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that although the petitioner is named inthe FIR but there is no specific allegation of any assault orovert-act attributed against the petitioner rather there is generaland omnibus allegation against all the accused personsexcluding co-accused person, namely, Yuvraj Kumar. From abare perusal of the FIR it appears that the FIR is in two parts. In1[st] part, there is specific allegation of assault attributed againstco-accused person, namely, Yuvraj Kumar and he gave twoknife blows on the back side of the informant and thereafter, allthe FIR named accused persons including the petitioner haveassaulted the informant. Learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that there is no specific allegation against the petitionerrather there is specific allegation of assault attributed against co-accused person, namely, Yuvraj Kumar.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehementlyopposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits thatthe informant has received the injury which is grievous in natureand apart from that, the petitioner carries three more cases otherthan the present one but fairly submits that out of three cases,the petitioner is on bail in two cases and rest one case is pendingfor consideration before the competent court of law.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against thepetitioner rather there is specific allegation of assault attributedagainst co-accused person, namely, Yuvraj Kumar, let thepetitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrenderbefore the court below within a period of thirty days from thedate of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishingbail bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of thelike amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Motihari, East Champaran/Successor Court inconnection with Chhatauni P.S.Case No.336 of 2020, subject tothe conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure/ Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and withother following conditions:-
(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall beproperly represented on each and every date fixed by the Courtand shall remain physically present as directed by the Court andon his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficientreason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or thewitnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to movefor cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall Nitesh/- UT
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case atany stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/hercriminal antecedent, the court below shall take step forcancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, theacceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned ordershall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name ofverification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)