Patna High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary @ Sanjeev ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to surrender.
Summary
Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary applied for anticipatory bail after learning that he may be arrested in connection with a case (No. 77 of 2025) alleging assault and other offences under several sections of the B.N.S. He contended that the case was false, rooted in a long‑standing land dispute and that the alleged injury to the informant resulted from a fall, not an assault. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner’s multiple prior criminal cases and alleging repeated violent attacks on the informant. The Court examined the allegations and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and found no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, ordered the petitioner to surrender within four weeks, and directed the lower court to consider a regular bail application on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged offences and his criminal antecedents
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- land dispute
- criminal antecedents
- assault
- surrender
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91886 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2025 Thana- KHIRHAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary @ Sanjeev Choudhary S/o- Late Kusheshwar
Choudhary R/v- Bourhar Ps- Khairhar Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Murari Narain Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.
for the State : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Khirhar P.S. Case No. 77 of 2025 dated 18.07.2025 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2),
109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
petitioner and others had brutally assaulted the informant and had
caused fracture of his right arm.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It has further
been submitted that there is a long standing dispute between the
parties and a series of cases have also been registered against each
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91886 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
other and in fact even the present case is a counter case to the
earlier case filed by the petitioner’s side which has been brought
on record by way of Annexure P/2. It has further been submitted
that on account of land dispute this false and concocted case has
been lodged. In the present case however, no such incident as
alleged has occurred and in fact, the injured had fracture in his
hand upon falling. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner
has four criminal antecedents and the cases are of similar nature
between the petitioner and the informant’s family and other cases.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
informant submits that the petitioner is an accused of repeated
assault on the informant causing head injury as well as fracture of
his right arm. It has further submitted that the petitioner though
has stated four criminal antecedents however the petitioner carries
six criminal antecedents and two have been suppressed. It has
further been submitted that the intention of the petitioner is evident
from the repeated blows and therefore, the petitioner should not be
granted the liberty of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby
dismissed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91886 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
Court below concerned within four weeks from the date of this
order and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below may
consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner on its own
merits without being prejudiced by this order.
7. The application stands dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…