Patna High Court
Vijay ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to Vijay Chaudhary but granted to Vinod and Rohit Chaudhary subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners Vijay, Vinod and Rohit Chaudhary applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a 2024 police case alleging assault on an informant’s family under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act. The prosecution alleged that Vijay caused grievous injury while Vinod and Rohit caused only simple injuries. The petitioners argued that the case was false, filed to settle personal scores, and that they have clean antecedents. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail for Vijay, citing the seriousness of the injury, but admitted the injuries to the others were simple. The High Court denied anticipatory bail to Vijay, directing him to seek regular bail, but granted anticipatory bail to Vinod and Rohit subject to monetary and procedural conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Vijay Chaudhary who is alleged to have caused grievous injury.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Vinod and Rohit Chaudhary who are alleged to have caused simple injuries.
- Whether the allegations constitute false implication warranting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sale (BNSS) — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 352, 482(2), 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- grievous injury
- simple injury
- false implication
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10085 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2024 Thana- Mehendiya District- Arwal
======================================================
1. Vijay Chaudhary S/o Ruplal Chaudhary R/o Village - Sohasa, P.S -
Mehandiya, District - Arwal
2. Vinod Chaudhary S/o Satendra Chaudhary R/o Village - Sohasa, P.S -
Mehandiya, District - Arwal
3. Rohit Chaudhary S/o Satendra Chaudhary R/o Village - Sohasa, P.S -
Mehandiya, District - Arwal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raju Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Drishti Mohan, Adv.
Ms. Anju Kumari Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Mehandiya P.S. Case No. 251 of 2024 dated 26.12.2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109, 74, 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against
the petitioners are that they in connivance with others assaulted
the father of the informant, the informant along with one lady
and the mother of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10085 of 2026(3) dt.21-05-2026
2/4
though there is a specific allegation against the petitioner no. 1
namely, Vinod Chaudhary who assaulted the father of the
informant namely, Rajdev Chaudhary causing grievous injury as
per the injury report. However, the allegations upon the
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 namely, Vinod Chaudhary and Rohit
Chaudhary respectively, they assaulted Chotte Lal and the
informant himself but the injuries sustained by them were found
to be simple in nature. It has further been submitted that entire
family has been falsely implicated in this case only to settle
personal scores. It has further been submitted that two lady
accused persons have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court and the said order has been brought on record by
way of Annexure-P/2. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioners have clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and
has stated that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner
no. 1 namely, Vijay Chaudhary who assaulted Rajdev
Chaudhary and he has admittedly received grievous injury and
therefore, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P. though has admitted the fact that the injuries
sustained by the other injured persons were found to be simple
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10085 of 2026(3) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
in nature.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 1 namely, Vijay
Chaudhary, and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner no. 1, Vijay Chaudhary is rejected. The petitioner no. 1
may approach before the learned Court below concerned and pray
for regular bail and the learned Court below may consider the
prayer for regular bail of the petitioner no. 1 on its own merits
without being prejudiced by this order.
7. So far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 namely, Vinod
Chaudhary and Rohit Chaudhary are concerned, they are
directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest
or surrender before the Court below within a period of four
weeks from today, on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand)each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Mehandiya P.S. Case No. 251 of 2024, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of BNSS as
well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10085 of 2026(3) dt.21-05-2026
4/4
petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial
and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the
petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the trial
court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bonds of
the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms
of the above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose
of or in the name of verification.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
9. The application stands allowed with respect to the
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 namely, Vinod Chaudhary and Rohit
Chaudhary.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.