Patna High Court
Akalu Noniya @ Akalu ChauhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
Since the FIR does not specifically implicate petitioner No.2, the court ordered his release on bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, brothers Akalu Noniya and Baliram Noniya, were implicated in a murder case (Kargahar PS Case No.133 of 2025) involving the alleged forced poisoning of a woman by her husband and in‑laws. Petitioner's first anticipatory bail was withdrawn after his arrest; the second petition sought anticipatory bail under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, claiming innocence and no criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail, citing a prior mediation in which the petitioner had given an undertaking that was allegedly not fulfilled. The informant, however, conceded that the FIR does not specifically name petitioner No.2. The Court held that the absence of any specific allegation against petitioner No.2 in the FIR warranted the grant of bail, subject to strict conditions and a bond. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail if arrested or surrendered within six weeks, with conditions to appear before the trial court, refrain from tampering with evidence, and not commit further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner No.2 despite the informant’s claim of non‑compliance with a mediation undertaking.
- Whether the FIR specifically charges petitioner No.2 under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the State’s opposition based on alleged breach of the mediation undertaking is sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 3(5), 482(2), 80
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- mediation
- breach of undertaking
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 80
- Section 3(5)
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56810 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2025 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Akalu Noniya @ Akalu Chauhan S/O Vishwanath Noniya @ Late
Vishavnath Noniya @ Vishawnath Noniya Resident of Village- Jagadatpur,
Police Station- Kargahar, District- Rohtas
2. Baliram Noniya @ Baliram Chauhan @ Baliram Chouhan S/O Vishwanath
Chauhan @ Late Vishawnath Chauhan Resident of Village- Jagadatpur,
Police Station- Kargahar, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. Earlier, vide order dated 10.12.2025, the
anticipatory bail application of petitioner no. 1 was withdrawn
at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner, since he had
already been arrested during the pendency of the said bail
application.
3. Now, this bail application is being heard with
regard to the petitioner no.2 only.
4. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No.133 of 2025, registered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56810 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
5. As per the FIR, the informant alleged that his
daughter was forcibly fed poison on 04.05.2025 by her husband
and in-laws. She was taken to PHC Karahgar, then referred to
Sadar Hospital, Sasaram, and finally to Narayan Medical
College and Hospital, where she was declared dead.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 2 is the
brother of petitioner no. 1, who is the father-in-law of the
deceased, and that he had no involvement in the day-to-day
affairs of the deceased or her husband. It is next submitted that
the husband and father-in-law of the deceased are already in
judicial custody, while the mother-in-law of the deceased has
recently been granted the privilege of regular bail. Lastly, it is
submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
7. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the informant submits that
mediation had taken place prior to the incident, in which
petitioner no. 2 was also a party, and since the undertaking given
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56810 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
by him was not complied with, he opposes the prayer for bail of
petitioner no. 2. However, he does not dispute the factual
position that there is nothing against petitioner no. 2 in the FIR.
9. Taking into consideration that there is nothing
specific against the petitioner no.2 in the FIR, let the above
named petitioner no.2, be released on bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-IV, Rohtas at Sasaram/Successor Court in
connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No.133 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS
as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56810 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing
any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at
liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U T
Checking your session…