Patna High Court
Shubham Chaudhary @ Shubham KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner’s lack of direct naming in the FIR and his assurances of cooperation justified granting regular bail with conditions.
Summary
Shubham Chaudhary was arrested in a case involving offences under several IPC sections and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, noting that his name was absent from the FIR and that the informant and another witness identified other accused as the shooters. The State opposed bail, fearing he might abscond, while the petitioner assured cooperation with the trial. The court examined the submissions, the lack of direct accusation in the FIR, and the petitioner’s assurances, and concluded that bail could be granted with appropriate sureties and conditions. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on regular bail, subject to bond and surety requirements, and warned that the trial court could cancel bail if he attempted to delay proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the serious nature of the charges under the IPC and Arms Act
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged false implication and non-mention in the FIR affect his eligibility for bail
- Whether there is a risk of the petitioner absconding or causing trial delay if released on bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 342, 379, 504
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91282 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-930 Year-2022 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Shubham Chaudhary @ Shubham Kumar Son of Vijay Shankar Choudhary
Resident of Village- Parashiya, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 01-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504, 307, 379
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and is in custody since
02.10.2025. It is next submitted that the informant alleges that he
on call of Vinayak went to Bazar Samiti on 21.10.2022 at 7 A.M.
where three named accused persons namely Ritesh, Yash and
Kanhaiya came and started abusing and assaulting the informant,
on account of dispute, further when Ajit came to save the
informant, the three named accused started firing causing firearm
injury on Ajit’s leg.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91282 of 2025(5) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation
as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant
specifically alleges that it were Ritesh, Yash and Kanhaiya who
fired causing firearm injury to Ajit. It is next submitted that
petitioner is not named in the FIR, but then his name transpired
during the course of investigation based on the restatement of
informant and statement of Ajit wherein they disclosed that it was
this petitioner who fired causing firearm injury to Ajit. It is next
submitted that from restatement of informant and statement of
Ajit, it manifests that both were knowing the petitioner, but still
petitioner was not named in the FIR which casts an aspersion on
the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that petitioner is a
Mechanical Engineer and was working with Anjali Construction,
an associate of JSW Steel, but then petitioner even lost his job
because of his false implication in the instant case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner, but then is not in a position to rebut the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that petitioner is not named in the FIR, but then it is
submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner
may abscond, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that if privilege of regular bail is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91282 of 2025(5) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
granted, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in
the trial to prove his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is directed
to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Ara
Nawada P.S. Case No. 930 of 2022.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father
namely Vijay Shankar Choudhary.
8. It is made clear that if the learned Trial Court comes
to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release, is trying to delay
the framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay
the trial, in both the conditions, the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application
stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…