Patna High Court
Nagendra Kumar Choubey @ Nagendra Choubey @ Nagendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as the injuries were simple, there was no intention to cause death, and the attachment process under the wrong provision was invalid.
Summary
Nagendra Kumar Choubey was arrested in connection with a FIR alleging assault with a sharp-edged weapon causing serious injuries and intent to cause death, arising from a land dispute. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that medical evidence showed the injuries were caused by a blunt object, were simple in nature, and did not demonstrate intent to kill. The State contended that multiple serious injuries were inflicted on vital parts and that the procedural steps under Cr.P.C. Section 82 were valid. The Court noted that the FIR was filed under the Bihar Non‑Compulsory Statutes (BNS) and that the attachment process should have been under BNS Section 84, not Cr.P.C. Section 82, and that a stay order had already been issued by the trial court. Considering the simple nature of the injuries, lack of intent to cause death, and procedural irregularities, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and conditions under Cr.P.C. Section 438(2) and BNS Section 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the FIR is filed under the BNS but the attachment process was initiated under Cr.P.C. Section 82.
- Whether the nature of injuries and lack of intent to cause death justify granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether a stay order issued by the trial court bars the initiation of anticipatory bail proceedings.
- Whether procedural impropriety in invoking the wrong statutory provision vitiates the process.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Non‑Compulsory Statutes (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 84
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2), 482(2), 82
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- injury nature
- intent to kill
- procedural impropriety
- BNS
- CrPC
- land dispute
- assault
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8963 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2025 Thana- BADDI District- Rohtas
======================================================
Nagendra Kumar Choubey @ Nagendra Choubey @ Nagendra Kumar S/O
Ram Bahadur Choubey Resident of village- Falwaria, P.O- Malwar, P.S-
Baddi, District- Rohtas Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Rashmi Jha, Adv
: Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Adv
For the Informant : Mr. Saroj Kr. Sharma, Adv
: Mr. Anupam Bahadur, Adv
: Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehended his arrest in connection with Baddi P.S. Case No.
172 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109 and 3(5) of the
BNS.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to assault
informant and others by using sharp edged weapon causing head
and other bodily injuries with other co-accused persons having
intention to cause their death.
4. Mrs. Rashmi Jha, learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8963 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/4
behalf of the petitioner submitted that upon medical examination,
injuries as alleged to be caused by this petitioner found to be
caused by hard and blunt object and simple in nature, contrary to
the allegation that injury was inflicted by using sharp edged
weapon. It is submitted that nature of injuries primarily negates
intention to cause death. It is further submitted that present
occurrence took place in the background of land dispute and
parties are in enmical terms as out of two criminal antecedents
one case was filed by same informant, whereas petitioner is on
bail in both cases.
5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for
the informant, while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail
submitted that multiple injuries were caused by petitioner and
other co-accused during the course of occurrence. It was
submitted that injury was caused on the vital parts of the body.
It is fairly conceded that process of attachment was initiated
under Cr.P.C., which ought to be initiated under BNSS and
further conceded also that he was not aware about the stay order
granted vide order dated 13.02.2026.
6. Taking note of aforesaid submission, it is further
pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that there is no
absolute bar to entertain anticipatory bail after initiation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8963 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
3/4
proceeding u/S 82 of the Cr.P.C. In support of her submission
learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through Srikant Upadhyay and Others Vs.
State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, Asha Dubey Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) 13123 of 2024
dated 12.11.2024.
7. In view of aforesaid legal position, it is submitted
by Mrs. Jha that in present case FIR was lodged on 09.11.2025,
whereas NBW was issued on 05.01.2026 in haste without taking
note of the fact that FIR was lodged under the provisions of
BNSS, proceeding of attachment was initiated under the provision
82 of Cr.P.C., which otherwise ought to be initiated under Section
84 of the BNSS and, therefore, the process which was initiated
under wrong provision of law, is of no legal sanctity. In this
context, it is submitted that a petition was also filed by one of the
co-accused namely Ashok Kumar Chaubey before learned Trial
Court, which was taken on record vide order dated 13.02.2026,
wherein learned trial court accepting the petition stayed the
process issued by learned trial court and as such it can be safely
said that no process was initiated u/S 82 of Cr.P.C. against
petitioner.
8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8963 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
4/4
taking note of the fact as injury as alleged to be inflicted by
petitioner during the course of occurrence appears simple in
nature, prima-facie, negating intention to cause death coupled
with fact process as initiated under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
challenging the maintainability of anticipatory bail petition was
stayed by learned trial court, as discussed aforesaid, accordingly
the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned trial court within a period of four
weeks, is directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1 st
Class, Sasaram/concerned trial court where the case is pending in
connection with Baddi P.S. Case No. 172 of 2025 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.