Patna High Court
Shambhu Choudhary @ Shambhu ChoudhariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Shambhu Choudhary, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case (PS Case No. 976 of 2025) alleging offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He claimed a clean antecedent and argued that the informant’s allegations were false and stemmed from a land dispute. The State opposed bail, highlighting a specific allegation that the petitioner assaulted the informant with a stick, causing a head injury measuring 6 cm by ½ cm by ½ cm on the frontal scalp. The court examined the seriousness of the alleged assault and the recorded injury, finding sufficient grounds to deny bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations of assault causing a head injury.
- Whether the recorded nature and extent of the injury justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the claim of false implication due to a land dispute is sufficient to merit bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- false implication
- land dispute
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- injury
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18319 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-976 Year-2025 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Shambhu Choudhary @ Shambhu Choudhari S/O Late Lakshan Chaudhary
@ Late Laxan Chaudhary @ Late Lachhan Chaudhari R/O Vill.- Ward No.-
01, Barwa Bishunpurwa, P.S- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajiv Nayan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Shikarpur PS Case No. 976 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) 109,
352, 351(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that accused persons including the petitioner were
demolishing his hut, on protest, Shambhu and Prabhu said that
he would be killed in the manner his father was killed, thereafter
shambhu assaulted him by farsa causing injury on head,
thereafter all accused assaulted his family members while
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18319 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
Angira and Asha snatched earrings and Kundan acted
inappropriately with Shobha.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant on account of dispute relating to land. It is next
submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, but
then informant alleges that he was threatened that he would be
killed in the manner his father was killed. It is further submitted
that specific allegation of assault is against the petitioner that he
assaulted the informant by farsa causing injury on head, but then
the order impugned does not record the nature of injury.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is a
specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the
informant by farsa causing injury on head. It is next submitted
that no doubt nature of injury has not been recorded in the order
impugned, but then the order impugned records that injury is on
vital part of the body, ie., head measuring 6 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm
over frontal region of scalp. It is thus submitted that one can
well imagine the force of assault causing injury of 6 cm on the
frontal region of the scalp.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18319 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is alleged to
have assaulted the informant by farsa causing injury on head as
recorded hereinabove, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…