Sonu Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sonu Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; regular bail refused. Petitioner may renew the prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded by then, and the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner, arraigned in PS Case No. 3 of 2025 (Thana Karnamepur, District Bhojpur) for offences punishable under sections 126(2), 109(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

Court's answer

Regular bail refused: on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the Court was not inclined to extend the privilege of bail, and the bail application was rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded by then.

Key takeaways

The trial Court was directed to expedite the trial.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Refusal — Indiscriminate knife assault; grievous cervical-spine injuries. Patna High Court, CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55623 of 2025 (oral order dated 08-12-2025, Ashok Kumar Pandey, J), arising out of PS Case No. 3 of 2025, Thana Karnamepur, District Bhojpur. Petitioner Sonu Singh prayed for regular bail in a case registered for offences punishable under sections 126 (2), 109 (2), 352, 351 (2) and 3 (5) of the BNS. Prosecution case: the petitioner inflicted indiscriminate 'knife' blows on the informant; the injury report records four lacerated, clean-cut, skin-deep wounds (frontal neck area, left side of chin, left side of chest, left upper back) and the doctor's opinion of fracture of the odontoid process of C2 vertebra with maintained atlanto-dental interval, and fracture of the anterior and posterior arch of C1 vertebra along with fracture of the right lateral mass; the weapon used is stated to be sharp-cutting and the injuries grievous. Defence pleaded innocence, contended that the recorded fractures were not possible from a knife, and urged that the three-day delay in lodging the FIR (occurrence 16.01.2025; FIR 19.01.2025) stood explained as the informant himself was the victim who sustained serious injuries; the learned APP opposed bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the allegations, the Court declined bail and rejected the application, reserving to the petitioner liberty to renew the prayer after six months if the trial remained unconcluded, and directing the trial Court to expedite the trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55623 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- Karnamepur District- Bhojpur

======================================================

Sonu Singh S/O Kanhiya Singh @ Kanhiya Rai Resident of VillageIshwarpura, P.S.- Karnamepur, District- Bhojpur

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Patna

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajani Ranjan Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.B.N. Pandey, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

4 08-12-2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 126 (2), 109 (2), 352, 351 (2) and 3 (5) of the BNS.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner ha given indiscriminate ‘ knife ’ blows to the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the injury report, it is clear that the doctor has found fractures, which according to the defence, are not possible to be caused by a ‘ knife ’.

5. From perusal of the injury report, it is also clear

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55623 of 2025(4) dt.08-12-2025 2/3

that the informant has sustained the following injuries:

1. Lacerated wound measuring 1/2” x 1/2” skin deep in the frontal area of neck, irregular in margin streak red in colour;

2. Lacerated wound measuring 1/2” x 1/2” skin deep on left side of chin, clean cut margin, streak red in colour;

3. Lacerated wound 1” x1/2” skin deep left side of chest, clean cut margin, streak red in colour and;

4. Lacerated wound measuring 1” x ½ skin deep over left side of upper back, clean cut margin, streak red in colour.

5. The doctor has further opined that fracture of the odontoid process of C2 vertebra, maintained atlanto-dental interval, and fracture of the anterior and posterior arch of C1 vertebra along with fracture of the right lateral mass. The doctor has mentioned that the weapon used is a sharp-cutting and the nature of injuries are grievous in nature.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence took place on 16.01.2025 whereas the FIR lodged on 19.01.2025. There is delay of three days in lodging of the FIR. It is further submitted that in this case victim himself is the informant and had sustained serious injuries; hence the delay itself explained.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55623 of 2025(4) dt.08-12-2025 3/3

7. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.

9. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not conclude by then. The trial Court is further directed to expedite the trial.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

Jagdish/-