Patna High Court
Manoj ChauhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioners, subject to conditions, as there is no specific allegation of assault against them and they possess a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, five members of the Chauhan family, sought bail in connection with a FIR alleging offences under Sections 190, 191(1), 191(2), 115, 109, 117(2) and 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising from a land‑dispute where they were accused of cutting bamboo and assaulting the informant. The prosecution argued that the accused were involved in the assault, while the petitioners contended they have clean antecedents, were falsely implicated, and that the FIR does not specifically allege assault against them, with three of them not even named in the FIR. The court examined the lack of specific charges, the clean record of the petitioners, and the existence of a counter‑case between the parties. Relying on Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482(2) of the BNS, the court granted bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and several conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The order directed that bail be released within thirty days of arrest or surrender.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted despite the FIR alleging multiple offences under the BNS.
- Whether the absence of a specific allegation of assault against the petitioners in the FIR warrants bail.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedent and the existence of a land‑dispute counter‑case affect the bail decision.
- Application of Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNS in granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 109, 115, 117(2), 190, 191(1), 191(2), 303(2), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- land dispute
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- section 438
- section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86830 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2025 Thana- KASBA District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Manoj Chauhan S/O Kailash Chauhan R/O Gadhiyabalua, Balua, P.S.-
K.Nagar, Distt.- Purnia.
2. Rishav Chauhan @ Rishav Kumar S/O Pratap Chauhan R/O Balua,
Gadhiyabalua, P.S- K.Nagar, Purnia.
3. Shanti Devi W/O Pratap Chauhan R/O Balua, Garhia, P.S- K.Nagar, Purnia.
4. Kunti Devi W/O Sahdev Chauhan R/O Gadhiya Balua, Balua, P.S.- K.Nagar,
Distt.- Purnia.
5. Binda Devi W/O Kailash Chauhan R/O Garhia Balua, Balua, P.S.- K.Nagar,
Distt.- Purnia.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Ahmad Ali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Kasba P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
19.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(1),
191(2), 190, 115, 109, 117(2) and 303(2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant
alleged that the petitioners along with other co-accused persons
came to his land and started cutting bamboo and trees. Upon
objection the accused persons assaulted the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86830 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that due
to admitted land dispute the present occurrence has taken place
and there is case and counter case between the parties. He
further submits that petitioner nos.3,4 &5 are not named in the
FIR but their name transpired during investigation and so far as
petitioner nos1 & 2 is concerned, although they are named in the
FIR but there is no specific allegation of assault or overt against
them.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the petitioners have clean antecedent and there is case and
counter case between the parties and there is no specific
allegation of assault or overt against them in the FIR, let the
petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of thirty days from the
date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M.,
Purnea in connection with Kasba P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86830 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…