Arjun ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38058 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-268 Year-2025 Thana- Jagdishpur District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Arjun Chaudhary Son of - Late Malakh Chaudhary @ Late Malakh Sahni
                 Resident of village - Jhakhra, P.S. - Jagdishpur District- West Champaran

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Pushpa Sinha, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-06-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 268 of 2025, dated 23.12.2025,

                   lodged under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 109(1),

                   115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS, 2023”), pending

                   before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran,

                   Bettiah.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   08 named and 4-5 unknown accused persons, including the

                   present petitioner, alleging that the informant and his cousin

                   used to run a jewellery shop, from which the accused persons
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38058 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/3




          had purchased jewellery worth Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees Two

          Lakhs), out of which Rs. 80,000 (Rupees Eighty Thousand)

          remained due. Upon demand being made by the informant, a

          heated exchange took place. Subsequently, it has been alleged

          that all the named accused persons and others assaulted the

          informant and his cousin, in which the informant’s cousin died

          due to the said assault.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

          further submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is

          clean. Counsel further submits that the petitioner’s name has

          been inserted in the present case with an ulterior motive.

          Counsel further submits that the petitioner was not present at the

          place of occurrence and has unnecessarily been made an

          accused in the present case. Counsel also submits that the

          petitioner is ready to fulfil all the conditions whatsoever that

          may be imposed upon him.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail of the petitioner and submits that, although the criminal

          antecedent of the petitioner is clean, there is a specific allegation

          against the present petitioner and others that they were involved

          in the said assault.
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38058 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                      3/3




                                 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                    present case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail

                    to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of

                    the petitioner is hereby rejected.



                                                                         (Dr. Anshuman, J.)

Aman Kumar/-

U     T