Patna High Court
Gariban ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Choudhary family, applied for anticipatory bail after a complaint was lodged alleging that they forcibly took possession of an ancestral house, demanded a Rs.5 lakh ransom, and looted household items worth Rs.30,000. The complaint cites offences under Sections 457, 380, 147, 148, 149, 386, 341, 323, 109, 113, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners contend they are innocent, claiming the allegations stem from a long‑standing land dispute and that the complainant has previously filed false cases against them. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents and the fact that the land had been decreed in favour of the complainant through an eviction suit. Considering the specific nature of the accusations, the criminal history of the petitioners, and the pending FIR, the Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the serious offences alleged under the IPC.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents and the land dispute justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 113, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 380, 386, 457, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- criminal antecedents
- IPC sections
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1566 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-679 Year-2024 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
1. Gariban Choudhary S/O Late Kishori Pasi R/O Village- Mastpura, P.S-
Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gayaji, Bihar.
2. Santosh Choudhary @ Sadhu S/O Gariban Chaudhary R/O Village-
Mastpura, P.S- Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gayaji, Bihar.
3. Bablu Choudhary @ Bablu Kumar S/O Gariban Chaudhary R/O Village-
Mastpura, P.S- Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gayaji, Bihar.
4. Arvind Choudhary @ Arvind Kumar S/O Gariban Chaudhary R/O Village-
Mastpura, P.S- Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gayaji, Bihar.
5. Luxmi Devi @ Lakshmi Devi W/O Gariban Chaudhary R/O Village-
Mastpura, P.S- Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gayaji, Bihar.
6. Nitu Kumari W/O Santosh Chaudhary @ Sadhu R/O Village- Mastpura, P.S-
Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gayaji, Bihar.
7. Punam Kumari @ Poonam Kumari W/O Bablu Choudhary @ Bablu Kumar
R/O Village- Mastpura, P.S- Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gayaji, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajesh Kumar S/O Late Lakshmi Narayan R/O Village- New Godown Lane,
P.S- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Ms. Mukul Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
For Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Durgesh Nanda, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1566 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
complaint case registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 457, 380, 147, 148, 149, 386, 341, 323, 109, 113, 504
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per complaint petition, all the named accused
persons, including these petitioners, forcibly took possession
over the ancestral house of the complainant, demanded Rs. 5
lacs ransom and threatened to sell the house. It is further alleged
that the accused persons also looted household articles, utensils,
etc. worth Rs. 30,000/-.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. As a matter of fact, on account of
long standing land dispute between the parties, petitioners have
falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that
the earlier three cases in which the petitioners have been made
an accused have also been lodged by the same complainant.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 have
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. and the land in question was decreed in favour of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 vide Eviction Suit No. 16 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1566 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
1998/01 of 1995 and the execution process ha also been
completed and thereafter, these petitioners forcibly tried to take
possession over the land in question. Petitioners have got three
criminal antecedents of similar nature.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and criminal
antecedents of the petitioners, the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…