Patna High Court
Dhana Devi @ Dhna DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail is warranted given the family relationship, fair antecedent, and delay in lodging the case.
Summary
The petitioners, Dhana Devi and Mohan Chaudhary, were accused of assaulting an informant, who is also a family member, with an iron rod and lathi, causing injuries and alleged theft of valuables. They faced charges under Sections 126(2), 352, 109, 303(2) and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the incident stemmed from a family partition dispute, that they have a clean antecedent, and that there was a considerable delay between the incident, complaint filing, and FIR registration. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the assault. The court, noting the familial relationship, the delay, and the petitioners' fair antecedent, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and required surety bonds. The order directed that bail be surrendered if the petitioners intimidate the informant or witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of assault under the IPC.
- Whether the familial relationship and delay in filing the FIR justify granting bail.
- Whether conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are applicable.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- Indian Penal Code
- family dispute
- pre‑arrest bail
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84125 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2025 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Dhana Devi @ Dhna Devi Wife of Mohan Chaudhary Resident of Village-
Rampur, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas
2. Mohan Chaudhary Son of Late Nageshwar Chaudhary Resident of Village-
Rampur, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashish, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 07-01-2026 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No. 31 of 2025, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 352, 109,
303(2) and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegedly on the fateful day the petitioners armed
with iron rod and lathi barged into the house of the informant
and started abusing. On protest being made It is specifically
alleged that petitioner no. 2 assaulted the informant by means of
iron rod, due to which he sustained serious injury on his hand,
whereas the petitioner no. 1 assaulted the informant by means of
lathi, besides there is allegation of snatching of valuables.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84125 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the parties are none else but own
brothers and bhabhi, however on account of some dispute
regarding partition, they have entered into scuffle, resulting into
some unfortunate injuries. Moreover, the alleged occurrence
took place on 28.11.2024 and from the record it appears that
complaint case was filed on 18.12.2024, which was later on sent
to the concerned police station and finally the FIR has been
instituted on 08.02.2025. The petitioner no. 1 has also instituted
Kargahar P.S. Case No. 77 of 2025 against the informant and
others. It is next contented that though there is allegation of
causing assault against the petitioner no. 2, which led to a grievous
injury, but it was an unfortunate injury and on non-vital part. The
petitioners bear fair antecedent and undertake before this Court
that they will take initiatives for settlement of the dispute as the
informant and the petitioner no. 2 are full brother.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits
that the petitioner no. 2 does not deserve the privilege of
anticipatory bail as he assaulted his brother, which led to
grievous injury.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84125 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the genesis of the occurrence, coupled with the close
relationship as well as fair antecedent and the delay in lodging
of the case, let the petitioners above named be released on bail,
in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate IV, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with
Kargahar P.S. Case No. 31 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with further following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioners.
(ii) If the petitioners are found indulged in
intimidating or threatening the informant and the witnesses, they
shall be at liberty to file cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U T
Checking your session…