In Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Suryakant and Joymalya Bagchi passed a 4-page long order dated October 31, 2025, wherein, it granted leave and set aside the 2-page long order dated March 17, 2025 by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court. The Supreme Court concluded:"It is, however, not in dispute that further investigation is still going on and the appellant, after he was subjected to custodial interrogation, is presently lodged in judicial custody. In such circumstances, when investigation is yet to be completed, the conclusion of trial will doubtless take some time, and the appellant has already served some time in custody, it seems to us that the appellant can be released on bail at this stage. 3. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. "
The appellant had prayed for enlargement on bail in FIR of 2019 registered at P.S. Bettiah Town, District West Champaran under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120(B)/34 IPC and Section 3 of the Bihar Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2002. The appellant, his brother and other family members had constituted a Cooperative Society, known as SWARN lndia Multi State Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd.. The investors were allured to invest in the Society with a promise of handsome returns. The amounts so deposited were, however, allegedly misappropriated; leading to registration of multiple FIRs against the appellant, his brother and other associates. The subject FIR was one of those cases in which the appellant was arrested on January 16, 2024. There were about nine other cases registered against him. The appellant claimed that he was neither a Director nor an authorised signatory of a bank account of the Society. The State counsel pointed out that as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the appellant was the Managing Director of the Society.
Upon hearing the case in the High Court, Justice Sharan noted that the petitioner along with other co-accused were said to have defalcated the money of the customers deposited in the Company Swarn India Multi Estate Credit Cooperative Society Limited. APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail petition. Justice Sharam concluded: "6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected at present." Supreme Court has set aside this order.
