Patna High Court
Gorelal ChauhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the allegations of assault with grievous injury and the seriousness of the offences warranted denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioners, four members of the Chauhan family, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a criminal case (Narhat PS Case No. 300 of 2025) filed under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110, 303(2), 74, 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The informant, Lakhiya Devi, who works as an Anganbari Sahayeka, alleged that the petitioners assaulted her and stole money, resulting in four injuries, one of which was recorded as grievous by the Community Health Center. The petitioners contended that the dispute was merely a land disagreement and sought bail, while the State highlighted the seriousness of the offences and the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents. The Court examined the injury report, the nature of the offences, and the possibility of the petitioners evading trial. Concluding that the allegations were substantiated and the offences were non‑bailable, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. The petitioners were directed to surrender within four weeks, after which the matter would be disposed of promptly.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences and the presence of grievous injury justify denial of bail
- Whether the petitioners' claim of a land dispute affects the bail consideration
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 110, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352, 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- grievous injury
- land dispute
- criminal antecedent
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7204 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-300 Year-2025 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Gorelal Chauhan S/o- Late Chhotelal Chauhan Village- Punaol PS- Narhat
District- Nawada
2. Sakaldev Chauhan S/o- Late Chhotelal Chauhan Village- Punaol Ps- Narhat
District- Nawada
3. Milmilahya Devi @ Lal Priya Devi @ Lal Pari Devi @ Kari @ Milmilya
Devi W/o- Late Chhotelal Chauhan Village- Punaol Ps- Narhat District-
Nawada
4. Geeta Devi @ Piariya Devi w/o- Sakaldev Chauhan Village- Punaol Ps-
Narhat District- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the
petitioners and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Narahat P.S. Case No. 300 of 2025 instituted under
Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110, 303(2), 74, 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S.
lodged on 13.09.2025 by the informant, Lakhiya Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that she is serving as ‘Anganbari Sahayeka’ in Ward No. 07 and
as she was going to the center, the accused persons brutally
assaulted her and also took away money. This led to the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7204 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/2
4. Earlier, this Court called for the case diary and
injury report which are now on record and the opinion of the
Community Health Center, Narahat, Nawada is that four injuries
were found on the person of the informant and the 4th injury has
been recorded as grievous in nature. Two of the petitioners are
also having criminal antecedent.
5. Though learned counsel for the petitioners tried to
show innocence submitting that there is land dispute between
the parties, learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that the
lady working in the ‘Anganbari’, intercepted, assaulted and the
injuries have been found to be grievous in nature.
6. In that background, it would be appropriate that the
petitioners seek bail.
7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
8. If the petitioners surrender within a period of four
weeks from today, the Court concerned shall take up the matter
and dispose it of preferably on the same day.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…