Patna High Court
Dharmveer ChaurasiaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the petitioner’s multiple antecedents and the risk of tampering with evidence outweigh any justification for bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmveer Chaurasia, applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged illegal trade of animal bones, with offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code. He argued that he was not named in the FIR and that his name only appeared later in a confessional statement of other accused, contending that the police implicated him because of his prior bail history in five other cases. The State opposed, highlighting the petitioner’s multiple antecedents and the risk that he might abscond or tamper with evidence if bail were granted, distinguishing his case from a prior anticipatory bail order granted to Javed Miyan. The court examined the submissions and concluded that the petitioner’s criminal record and the ongoing investigation warranted denial of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 3(5) of the IPC.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent cases and the possibility of evidence tampering justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 317
- Section 3
- animal bone trade
- antecedent cases
- evidence tampering
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85830 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2025 Thana- Bhelahi District- East Champaran
======================================================
Dharmveer Chaurasia Son of Late Bhola Chaurasia @ Late Bhola Raut
Resident of village- Bhelahi (Bhalahi), P.S.- Bhelahi, District -East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of five cases and is on bail in all
the five cases and the informant alleges that an information was
received that unknown accused are indulging in trade of bones,
the informant along with the force reached the place of
occurrence and apprehended seven accused persons along with
150 sacks filled with animal bones loaded on a tractor, thus
alleges that apprehended accused were involved in illegal trade
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85830 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
2/3
of animal bones.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR and from perusal of the FIR,
it would manifest that seven persons were apprehended, but
then, the apprehended accused did not disclose the name of the
petitioner, but subsequently the name of the petitioner transpired
in the confessional statement of apprehended accused. It is
further submitted that the apprehended accused initially had
disclosed that they were not aware of the name of the persons
who were involved in the trade, but had only stated that apart
from them, 8-10 unknown accused are also involved in the
occurrence. It is thus submitted that when the apprehended
accused initially did not disclose the name of the petitioner that
amply demonstrates that subsequently the police got the
petitioner implicated because of his antecedents. It is further
submitted that Javed Miyan had approached this Court seeking
anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.75570 of 2025 and the
same came to be allowed by an order dated 20.11.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application and submits that case of the petitioner is not
akin to the case of Javed Miyan as Javed Miyan had antecedent
of one case whereas petitioner has antecedent of five cases. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85830 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
3/3
also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted,
the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence. It
is next submitted that initially apprehended accused did not
disclose the name of the petitioner, but subsequently when they
were arrested, the name of the petitioner was disclosed during
the time of interrogation. It is further submitted that even
investigation of the case is continuing and if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may
abscond or try to tamper with the evidence..
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…