Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 18-03-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dumariaghat P.S. Case No. 234 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶15

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6464 of 2025 taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as also there being recovery of looted goods from the possession of the accused persons including the petitioner.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18240 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026 2/3

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 18.11.2024 without any rhymes or reason and has got one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail. It is also submitted that earlier, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, but the trial is in progress and out of five charge-sheeted witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined in this case. It is next submitted that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 08.04.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the continued incarceration of the petitioner without conclusion of trial amounts to a gross violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of Judgments.

¶18

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the period of custody undergone by the petitioner as also charge has been framed against the petitioner and taking into account the fact that continued detention of the petitioner would serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18240 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026 3/3

¶21

incarceration, which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Dumariaghat P.S. Case No. 234 of 2024.

¶23

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶24

Rajorshi/-

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Saurabh Kumar yadav @ shivam saurabh Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Husen Rain @ M.D. Husaun @ Hasan Rain Vs The State of Bihar

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Satya Narayan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Rupesh Mehta @ Rupesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar