Patna High Court
Jamuna Chouhan @ Yamuna ChouhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting bail is set aside and the appellant is released on bail.
Summary
Jamuna Chouhan was charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged participation in a violent attack on a village in September 2024 that involved arson, looting and assault. The Special Judge had rejected her bail application, and a prior appeal for bail was also dismissed by the Patna High Court. The appellant argued she had no prior criminal record, had been in custody since September 2024, and that a co‑accused in the same case had been granted bail, invoking parity. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, considering the length of her custody and the principle of parity, set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail subject to monetary and procedural conditions. The appeal was therefore allowed and the appellant released on bail.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting bail to an accused facing multiple serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the principle of parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail warrants bail for the appellant.
- Whether the length of custodial detention and lack of criminal antecedents justify bail despite the gravity of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 111(3), 190, 191(2), 193(3), 303(2), 326(g), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2)(a)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- serious offences
- parity
- custodial detention
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4820 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada
======================================================
Jamuna Chouhan @ Yamuna Chouhan S/o Late Khiru Chouhan R/o Village -
Lohani Bigha, P.S - Muffasil, District - Nawada
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Beyas Muni S/o Sanjay Manjhi R/o Village - Dedour Tola, Krishna Nagar at
River, P.S - Muffasil, District - Nawada
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by learned Exclusive
Special Judge, Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, Nawada whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 372 of 2024 under
Sections 191(2), 193(3), 190, 109(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3),
326(g), 303(2), 111(3), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1), 3(1)(f),
3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act was rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4820 of 2025(3) dt.01-05-2026
2/4
3. Earlier, vide order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 5651 of 2024, the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellant was rejected by this Court. This is the second attempt
of the appellant for grant of bail.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant and
about 60 families of Krishna Nagar were living since 2015 in a
small hut-like houses on government land by the river bearing
Khata No. 226 and Plot 2278/2470. It is alleged that on
September 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, 60-70 named and unnamed
individuals, armed with pistols, sticks and petrol, attacked the
village, opened fire on the villagers as also assaulted them,
including women and children. The attackers set on fire the
houses, vandalized them and looted whatever money and
valuables they found. When the villagers approached to save
their property, all the attackers started firing upon them.
Altogether, 35 homes including Informant’s were completely
destroyed and looted.
5. Learned counsel mainly contended that appellant has
no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since
24.09.2024 and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in
near future and therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel further submitted that similarly situated co-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4820 of 2025(3) dt.01-05-2026
3/4
accused person has already been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1219 of
2025.
6. Learned Special P.P. for the State vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, claim based on parity as also the period of custody
undergone by the appellant, this Court is inclined to allow this
appeal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated
24.09.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, Special
Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nawada in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 372 of 2024 is hereby
set aside.
9. Let the appellant, abovenamed, 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 Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 372 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the appellant.
(II) The appellant shall appear on each and every date
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4820 of 2025(3) dt.01-05-2026
4/4
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the appellant.
(III) If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.