Patna High Court
Kaushal Chaudhary @ Kaushal Kumar ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the investigation is ongoing and the material collected implicates the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Kaushal Chaudhary, applied for anticipatory bail in a case where police recovered firearms and narcotics and alleged his involvement in dacoity under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the NDPS Act. The prosecution’s case is based on a confessional statement of co-accused Md. Neyaz Ahmad, which implicates the petitioner. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to village politics. The High Court examined the material, noted that the investigation is ongoing and that custodial interrogation may be required, and found no justification to depart from the lower court’s findings. Consequently, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences and the material implicating him
- Whether the ongoing investigation and need for custodial interrogation preclude the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 310(4), 310(5)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal investigation
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- NDPS Act
- dacoity
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8849 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-442 Year-2025 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Kaushal Chaudhary @ Kaushal Kumar Choudhary S/o Ashok Chaudhary @
Suryanarayan Choudhary R/o Village- Kusmaul, PS- Rajnagar, Distt-
Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brajesh Sahay
Ms. Vandana Rani
Ms. Rupa Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Rajnagar Police Station Case No. 442 of 2025, dated
10.10.2025, disclosing offences punishable under
Sections 310 (4)/310(5)/111(2)(b)/111(3)/111(4) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 25(1-b)a/26/35 of
the Arms Act and Sections 8(c)/21(b)/29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 10.10.2025, the police, during patrolling, saw
five motorcycles coming from Rampati Hat Chowk and
signalled them to stop, but some persons on two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8849 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/3
motorcycles fled away, however, the police apprehended
five accused persons, along with three motorcycles. On
search, the police recovered two pistols with live
cartridges and 95.91 gms. brown sugar from the
possession of the arrested co-accused persons.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case due to village politics. He further submits that
the name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the
basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Md.
Neyaz Ahmad, who has disclosed that he, along with the
petitioner and other co-accused persons were indulged in
the criminal activities and on the date of occurrence, he,
the petitioner and other accused persons were going to
commit dacoity.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material available on record, including the
impugned order.
6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the
petitioner was in contact with the arrested accused
persons and co-accused Md. Neyaz Ahmad, in his
confessional statement, has disclosed the active
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8849 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/3
involvement of the petitioner.
7. Considering the above, I do not find any reason to differ
with the findings arrived at by the learned Principle
Sessions Judge, Madhubani, inasmuch as the case is
under investigation, wherein the custodial interrogation of
the petitioner may be necessary based upon the material
collected by the police during course of investigation. As
such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
8. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.