Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shivjee Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 06-05-2026 Heard the parties.

¶11

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant

¶12

of regular bail in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 817 of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 309(4) of the B.N.S. and subsequently Section 317(2) of B.N.S. was added. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83363 of 2025 which reads as under:-

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 817/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) of B.N.S. and subsequently Section 317(2) of B.N.S. was

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26675 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 2/3

¶15

added.

¶16

3. As per the prosecution case, on 02.07.2025, Sanjay Kumar, working as Sangam Manager at Bharat Finance Inclusion Limited in Saran district, left his office at 7:00 AM to visit centers in Hajipur. He collected Rs. 49,147/- at Andarkila center and Rs. 17,750/- at Ramchaura Mandir center, keeping the money in his motorcycle dickey. Near Ramchaura temple, four boys stopped him; one pointed a pistol, robbed his red Pulsar 125 motorcycle containing Rs. 66,857/-, charger, TAB, and biometric card.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case. No incriminating articles has been recovered from their possession. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner no. 1 has four criminal antecedents and petitioner no. 2 has three criminal antecedents and they are in custody since 13.07.2025 and 02.08.2025. The petitioners undertakes to co-operate in the case/ trial.

¶18

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners on the ground that the name of the petitioners have come during investigation.

¶19

6. Considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶20

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

¶21