Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sonu Chaudhary @ Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The appeal is allowed and the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside, granting bail to the appellants.

Summary

The appellants, Sonu Chaudhary and Sunil Chaudhary, were charged under several sections of the B.N.S. and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant with a knife and an iron fighter on 17 August 2025. The prosecution’s case relied on the informant’s claim that the accused intercepted him, used caste‑based slurs and inflicted injuries, while the defence argued that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate 14‑day delay, the injuries were minor, and the dispute was rooted in a pre‑existing land conflict. The State and the informant opposed the appellants’ prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the delay, the nature of the injuries, and the clean antecedents of the accused, set aside the lower court’s order rejecting bail and granted bail to the appellants subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. The order directs that the bail be effected within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

Issues considered

  • Whether the delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case under the SC/ST Act.
  • Whether the nature and extent of alleged injuries justify denial of anticipatory bail.
  • Whether the appellants’ clean antecedents and the alleged land‑dispute motive warrant grant of bail despite charges under the SC/ST Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • SC/ST Act
  • delay in FIR
  • caste based violence
  • bail bond
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5089 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-438 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sonu Chaudhary @ Sonu Kumar Son of Goverdhan Chaudhary Resident of
                  Village - Tilangahi, P.S. - Bairiya, Distt. - West Champaran.
           2.    Sunil Chaudhary @ Sunil Kumar Son of Bunilal Chaudhary @ Bunilal @
                 Bhori Resident of Village - Tilangahi, P.S. - Bairiya, Distt. - West
                 Champaran.

                                                                                  ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sanjiv Kumar Son of Lalan Ram R/o Village - Nautan Khap Tola, Ward no.
                 10, P.S. - Nautan, Dist. - West Champaran.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellants      :        Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Ms. Kumari Akanksha Rai, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   30-04-2026                 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants,

                   learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-

                   State      and       learned        counsel        appearing        for      the

                   informant/Respondent No. 2.

                               2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order

                   dated 18.11.2025 passed in a case registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352

                   and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of

                   the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5089 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
                                             2/4




          Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail

          of these appellants has been rejected.

                       3.       The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

          17.08.2025 at about 9:30 PM, when the informant was returning

          from Tilhahi Chowk, in the meantime, all the F.I.R. named

          accused persons, including this appellants, along with 5 to 6

          unknown persons, intercepted him and abused him by caste

          based slurs. It is further alleged that Appellant No. 1, namely

          Sonu Chaudhary, assaulted informant with knife and Appellant

          No. 2, namely Sunil Chaudhary, assaulted informant with iron

          fighter.

                       4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the appellants that appellants are quite innocent and

          have committed no offence. As a matter of fact, on account of

          pre-existing land dispute, this false and concocted case has been

          lodged. The present F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay

          of 14 days and there is no plausible explanation for the same,

          which itself makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. Doctor

          has found the injuries, allegedly caused by these appellants,

          simple in nature. It is further submitted that it is not the case of

          the prosecution that any member of public was present at the

          place of occurrence and as such, no case under the Scheduled
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5089 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
                                             3/4




          Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is

          made out against these appellants. Appellants claim clean

          antecedents.

                       5. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State

          and learned counsel appearing for the informant/Respondent

          No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to

          the appellants.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, delay in lodging of the F.I.R., nature of injuries allegedly

          caused by these appellants and clean antecedents of the

          appellants, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated

          18.11.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional

          Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Bettiah, West

          Champaran in connection with A.B.P. No. 2632 of 2025 arising

          out of Nautan P.S. Case No. 438 of 2025 is hereby set aside with

          respect to these appellants only.

                       7. Accordingly, let the appellants, named above, in the

          event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from the

          date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on

          bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each

          with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          learned District and Additional Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5089 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
                                                          4/4




                       Judge, SC/ST, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with

                       Nautan P.S. Case No. 438 of 2025.



                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.