Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to bail, subject to conditions, under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers, sought relief from imminent arrest in a criminal case (Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 368 of 2025) alleging assault under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2) and 109 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution’s FIR was lodged 14 days after the alleged incident, and the petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated to shield the informant’s husband, who had earlier been accused of killing a relative. The petitioners argued that the delay and the background of a prior case indicated a motive to misuse the law. The State opposed bail, contending that specific allegations of brutal assault existed. Considering the possibility of false implication, the delay in filing the FIR, and the petitioners’ clean antecedents, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS and ordered their release on bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the 14‑day delay in lodging the FIR demonstrates false implication warranting bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2) and 109 r/w 3(5) justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109 r/w 3(5), 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28352 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-368 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Raj S/O Laxman Chaudhary Resident of Vill.-
Shivnandanpur, Muktapur, P.S- Kalyanpur, Distt.- Samastipur
2. Deepak Kumar Son of -Laxman Chaudhary. Resident of Vill.-
Shivnandanpur, Muktapur, P.S- Kalyanpur, Distt.- Samastipur
3. Vikram Kumar @ Vikram Chaudhary @ Vicky Chaudhary Son of -Late
Mantun Chaudhary. Resident of Vill.- Shivnandanpur, Muktapur, P.S-
Kalyanpur, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
02. In the present case, the petitioners are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Kalyanpur P.S.
Case No. 368 of 2025 registered for the alleged offence under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 109 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
03. As per prosecution case, informant came to know
from villagers that her husband was brutally assaulted and he
was hospitalized. The informant went there and found her
husband admitted in ICU. When he regained consciousness, he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28352 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/4
named the petitioner and two other co-accused persons along
with some unknown persons who assaulted him with brick,
stones, lathi, danda and iron rod.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this
case. The informant has lodged this case in order to create a
defence for her husband Ramjanm Choudhary @ Ramjanm
Sahni. Earlier Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 359 of 2025 was
registered on the written report of one Meeta Devi, the mother
of petitioner no. 3, as her husband Mantu Choudhary was shot
dead by Ramjanm Sahni, the husband of the informant, with the
help of his associates. When the villagers gave a chase, husband
of the informant was caught but his other associates fled away
from the spot. The apprehended husband of the informant was
assaulted by the villagers who became violent due to shoot out
in public view. The petitioners are students and they are having
clean antecedent. There is specific allegation of firing upon the
deceased against the husband of the informant, she roped in all
these petitioners and lodged this case as a counterblast in order
to put pressure upon the petitioners with an intention to take
undue advantage. This fact is also clear from the chronology of
the events as the incident took place on 27.10.2025 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28352 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
3/4
informant stated that her husband regained consciousness on
05.11.2025, still the FIR has been instituted by the informant on
09.11.2025 and this inordinate delay of 14 days is without any
explanation and it shows afterthought and deliberation on part
of the informant.
05. Learned APP for the State opposes the submission
made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP further submits
that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that they
brutally assaulted the husband of the informant.
06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the
earlier lodged case against the husband of the informant and
further considering the strong possibility of false implication of
the petitioners, let the petitioners above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a
period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Samastipur/court concerned in connection with Kalyanpur P.S.
Case No. 368 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under
Section 482(2) of BNSS and other following conditions:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28352 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
4/4
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of
the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each
and every date fixed by the court below, if so
required by the learned trial court.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.