Patna High Court
Jitendra ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered anticipatory bail for petitioner no. 1 (Jitendra Chaudhary) subject to specified conditions and permitted the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application for petitioner no. 2 (Bambam Chaudhary).
Summary
The petitioners Jitendra Chaudhary and Bambam Chaudhary applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case involving offences under various sections of the B.N.S. Act and the Arms Act. The petitioners claimed that they were falsely implicated in a land‑dispute‑related incident and that the informant’s testimony was unreliable. The counsel for the petitioners sought to withdraw the anticipatory bail application for Bambam Chaudhary, who had already been arrested, and asked for bail for Jitendra Chaudhary. The State opposed the bail. The Court granted anticipatory bail to Jitendra Chaudhary subject to a cash bond, two sureties and a condition that the bail may be cancelled if he fails to cooperate with the investigation, and allowed the withdrawal of the application for Bambam Chaudhary.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC given the nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.
- Whether the application for anticipatory bail can be withdrawn for the second petitioner who is already in custody.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1)(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- false implication
- land dispute
- bail conditions
- withdrawal of application
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72465 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Jitendra Chaudhary S/o- Anil Chaudhary Village- Jai Prakash Nagar PS-
Khagaria District-Khagaria
2. Bambam Chaudhary S/o- Late Sunil Chaudhary Village- Jai Prakash Nagar
PS- Khagaria District-Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset
seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner no.2, namely, Bambam Chaudhary,
who was arrested during pendency of the instant anticipatory
bail application.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1)(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3)
of B.N.S. & Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72465 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner no.1 has antecedent of seven cases and the informant
alleges that informant was informed by the S.H.O. that firing is
being resorted to in between two groups at Naya Tola Rahimpur
Diyara, on account of land dispute, accordingly the informant
reached the place of occurrence and on seeing the police force,
the accused persons fled but Babish and Dinesh were
apprehended and the chowkidar disclosed the names of the
accused persons including the petitioner who fled.
6. The learned counsel submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is
next submitted that Babish and Dinesh were apprehended but
they did not disclose the name of the petitioner rather the name
was disclosed at the instance of chowkidar. It is further
submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case the police
starts implicating mechanically. It is also submitted that
petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove his innocence.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner no.1, above-named, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72465 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.58/2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. Further, one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his uncle (Phupha), namely, Ramashray Singh, who has sworn
the affidavit.
10. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner
despite giving assurance to this court is not co-operating in the
investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.