Patna High Court
Santosh Kumar Chaudhary @ Santosh ChaudhariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, directing his release upon furnishing the prescribed bond and sureties.
Summary
Santosh Kumar Chaudhary was arrested in connection with a violent incident involving the burning of vehicles and assault on workers during the construction of a railway bridge, alleged to have been orchestrated by a group of extremists. The prosecution listed him among 63 accused persons and charged him under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the U.P. Act. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, arguing that it was implausible for the assailants to have identified each other by name and that the allegations were vague and omnibus. He also highlighted that several co‑accused had already been granted bail and that he had been in judicial custody since 16 May 2025. The State opposed the bail application, but the High Court, after considering the circumstances, ordered his release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, charged with multiple serious offences, is entitled to regular bail under the circumstances.
- Whether the evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offences is sufficient to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 379, 387, 427, 436, 504, 506
Subjects
- regular bail
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- U.P. Act
- criminal procedure
- high court
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89554 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2016 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Chaudhary @ Santosh Chaudhari S/O Sukhi Chaudhary R/O
Village- Parshurampur, P.S- Parasi, Distt.- Arwal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148,
149, 341, 323, 379, 427, 436, 504, 506 and 387 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 15,
18, 19 and 20 of U.A.P. Act.
3. As per written report, Vinod Kumar Yadav
sustained injury at the place of occurrence who was proprietor
of M/s. Vinod Kumar Yadav Construction Agency. He was
constructing Railway Bridge. He informed the police that under
the leadership of Praduman Sharma, extremists demanded levy
earlier in lieu to construction of Railway Bridge and when he
saw his inability, extremists burnt four vehicles, assaulted and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89554 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
injured his staff Kailash Yadav and other labourers. He dislcosed
that in course of assault and burning, the extremists were calling
each other with their names. He further disclosed the name of 63
accused persons including the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has
falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsels for the
petitioners have submitted that it is not palpable that accused
persons while committing the offence will call each other with
their names and it is also not palpable that one may remember
the names of 63 persons. The nature of allegation is general and
omnibus. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that similarly situated several co-accused persons
have already been granted bail by this Court vide Annexure-P/2
of this petition. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in
judicial custody since 16.05.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed
the prayer of regular bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89554 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
Sirdala P.S. Case No. 264 of 2016 on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-IV, Nawada.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…