Patna High Court
Chandu Rajak @ Chandan RajakversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to surrender within six weeks and furnishing bail bonds with sureties as per Section 482(2) of the BNS.
Summary
The petitioners, four members of the Rajak family, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several sections of the BNS relating to assault and other offences. They claimed that the informant had falsely implicated them, that the FIR lacked specific allegations against some of them, and that the injury report and informant's name were incorrectly recorded. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the alleged offences. The court examined the submissions and noted inconsistencies in the FIR and lack of proper injury documentation. It held that, provided the petitioners surrender within six weeks and furnish bail bonds with sureties, anticipatory bail could be granted subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNS. The order thus released the petitioners on anticipatory bail pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances of alleged false implication and procedural irregularities in the FIR.
- Whether the inconsistencies in the injury report and misidentification of the informant affect the merits of the bail application.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- assault
- FIR
- injury report
- land dispute
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16529 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2025 Thana- BARHAT District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Chandu Rajak @ Chandan Rajak S/o Klit Rajak @ Kalit Rajak R/o Village -
Tetariya, P.S - Barhat, District - Jamui
2. Nandu Rajak @ Nandan Rajak S/o Klit Rajak @ Kalit Rajak R/o Village -
Tetariya, P.S - Barhat, District - Jamui
3. Rabindra Rajak S/o Kartik Rajak R/o Village - Tetariya, P.S - Barhat,
District - Jamui
4. Ranjan Rajak @Niranjan Rajak S/o Kartik Rajak R/o Village - Tetariya, P.S
- Barhat, District - Jamui
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have antecedent of one case and
petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are persons with clean antecedent but
then petitioner no. 1 was acquitted in the case and the informant
alleges that accused persons including the petitioners came on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16529 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
09.11.2025 at 04:00 PM and started abusing, on objection,
Rajkumar (petitioner no.1) assaulted the informant by rod
causing injury on head while Pawan Rajak (petitioner no. 2)
assaulted him by khanti causing injury over the ear, thereafter,
Nandu assaulted Naresh by farsa causing injury on head while
Bhagirath assaulted Naresh by stone causing injury on hand,
thereafter Ranjan and Ravindra assaulted Mithilesh by kudal
and lathi and Ashok assaulted Babita on chest and other part of
the body by lathi while Mukesh Rajak assaulted Mukesh Kumar
by lathi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant, it is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR it would manifest that no
specific allegation of assault is alleged against petitioner no. 1,
though petitioner no. 2 is alleged to have assaulted Naresh by
farsa on head while petitioner no. 3 is alleged to have assaulted
Mithilesh by kudal and petitioner no. 4 is alleged to have
assaulted Mithilesh by lathi but then the injury report is not on
record nor the order impugned records about the injury suffered
by them. It is also submitted that on account of dispute relating
to land the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16529 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
submitted that the order impugned with regard to the injury
suffered by the informant has wrongly recorded the name of the
informant as Manish.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, the petitioners, in the event of their arrest
or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Barhat
P.S. Case No. 166 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…