Patna High Court
Harendra ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioners.
Summary
Harendra Chaudhary and Paramanand Chaudhary sought anticipatory bail in a murder case under Sections 302 and 34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging that the deceased Jageshwar Chaudhary was killed by them. They argued that the FIR was lodged two days after the death, that the post‑mortem report attributes death to myocardial infarction with no external injuries, and that they are falsely implicated. The State contended that the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR, that there is prior enmity, and that the police inquest recorded four external injuries absent from the post‑mortem. The court observed the seriousness of the offence, the discrepancy between the post‑mortem and inquest reports, and the severity of the potential punishment. Accordingly, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in a murder case under Sections 302 and 34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the discrepancy between post‑mortem and inquest reports create reasonable doubt sufficient to merit bail
- Whether prior enmity and the seriousness of the offence outweigh the petitioners' claim of innocence
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- Section 302
- Section 34
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- post‑mortem report
- inquest report
- delay in FIR
- enmity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65869 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2024 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Harendra Chaudhary S/o Rajendra Chaudhary R/o village- Simarwara
Durgapur, PS- Patepur, District- Vaishali
2. Paramanand Chaudhary S/o Rajendra Chaudhary R/o village- Simarwara
Durgapur, PS- Patepur, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pd., A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail, arises
out of Patepur Police Station Case No. 165 of 2024, disclosing
offence under Section 302/34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information
Report, is that on 07.06.2024, the husband of the informant,
namely, Jageshwar Choudhari (deceased), had gone to
Simarwara Durgapur from Siwan in the evening. During the
night, when he went behind his house, the accused persons
named in the F.I.R. assaulted and killed him. The villagers saw
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65869 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
the dead body in the morning at 07:00 a:m and informed the
informant on her phone about the death of her husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the
present case. There is a delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R.,
which creates doubt regarding the prosecution story. There is
previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased,
inasmuch as the deceased was one of the co-accused in the
murder of the son of co-accused Rajendra Choudhary. Referring
to the post-mortem report, learned counsel submits that the
cause of death has been opined as shock due to Myocardial
infraction. No external injury has been noticed by the doctor, in
the post-mortem report annexed as Annexure-3.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submits that the petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R.
and there is previous enmity between them also. In inquest
report prepared by the police, external injuries were found on
the body of the deceased. Altogether four injuries were noted in
the inquest report, which, however, do not find mention in the
post-mortem report.
6. Regards being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the gravity of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65869 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
offence and the severity of punishment and the fact that there is
a difference between the post-mortem report and the inquest
report, regarding external injury, I am not inclined to grant the
petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. In the result, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.