Patna High Court
Chotu @ Chotu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioners, Chotu Kumar, Sujit Kumar, Surendra Ray and Ramnath Ray, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the B.N.S.S. 2023 alleging assault on an informant and his wife. They contended they have clean antecedents, were falsely implicated, and that the injuries described in the FIR were minor and the matter had been compromised. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the petitioners' background, and the possibility of misuse of the process. It held that anticipatory bail could be granted subject to strict conditions to ensure the petitioners' appearance before the trial court. Accordingly, the petitioners were released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, with conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a serious offence warranting denial of bail
- Whether the petitioners are likely to flee or tamper with evidence
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- assault
- Criminal Procedure Code
- B.N.S.S.
- bail conditions
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17104 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2025 Thana- MOHIUDDIN NAGAR District-
Samastipur
======================================================
1. Chotu @ Chotu Kumar S/o Surendra Ray R/o Village- Tetarpur, Ward No.
04, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur
2. Sujit Kumar S/o Dharmnath Ray @ Surendra Ray R/o Village- Tetarpur,
Ward No. 04, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur
3. Surendra Ray S/o Mahindra Ray R/o Village- Tetarpur, Ward No. 04, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur
4. Ramnath Ray S/o Mahindra Ray R/o Village- Tetarpur, Ward No. 04, P.S.-
Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 1. 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 115(2),
126(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109(1), 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5)
of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that accused persons including the petitioners came to
the house of the informat and assaulted him and his wife
causing injury.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17104 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that on orders of Surendra, accused Sujit
assaulted the informant by Kudal causing injury on head
thereafter Ramnath assaulted the wife of the informant by rod
causing injury on hand and Chotu dashed her on the ground and
Mamta and Bechni snatched the chain. It is next submitted that
though allegation of assault is specific but then the injury
suffered by the injured has been opined to be simple in nature
and the blow is not alleged to be repeated and petitioners are not
criminals and the parties have even compromised the case.
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 appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the
petitioners, above-named, 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) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17104 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with
Mohiuddin Nagar P.S. Case No. 235 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…