Patna High Court
Harendra ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Harendra Choudhary applied for anticipatory bail in a case (PS Charpokhari Case No.186 of 2025) alleging offences under Section 140(3) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, together with co‑accused Mangru Chaudhary, Jitendra Chaudhary and Kariman Chaudhary, conspired to murder the deceased, who was the brother of an informant, because the deceased objected to their illicit relationship with a woman named Arti Devi. The only link to the petitioner was the confessional statement of co‑accused Mangru Chaudhary; no direct evidence was presented. The court examined the seriousness of the alleged conspiracy, the post‑mortem findings of a penetrating wound, and the nature of the allegations. Finding the allegations serious and the petitioner’s involvement plausible, the court declined to differ from the lower order and refused to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of conspiracy to murder under Section 140(3) B.N.S.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused is sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 140(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- conspiracy
- murder
- illicit relationship
- Section 140(3)
- post-mortem
- bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9385 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2025 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Harendra Choudhary S/O Bhagwan Chaudhari @ Bhagean Chaudhary R/O
Vill.- Shashpura , P.S-Charpokhari, Dist.- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 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 Charpokhari Police Station Case No. 186 of 2025,
disclosing offences under Section 140(3) of B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 30.08.2025 at about
10:00 p.m., the elder brother of the informant left his home to
attend nature’s call but did not return till late night. The
informant searched for him but could not locate his
whereabouts.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
name of the petitioner has transpired only on the basis of the
confessional statement of co-accused Mangru Chaudhary. There
is no direct allegation against the petitioner that the victim has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9385 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
been killed due to his illicit relationship with one Arti Devi.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through the impugned order, it appears that the
petitioner was having illicit relationship with one Arti Devi,
which was objected by the deceased. Prior to the date of
occurrence, altercation had taken place between the deceased,
Mangru Chaudhary and Arti Devi, and Mangru Chaudhary had
threatened the informant’s brother (the deceased). It further
appears that Mangru Chaudhary, in his confessional statement,
has stated that the deceased was the brother-in-law of Arti Devi
and that he used to object his relationship with the said Arti
Devi. It also appears that apart from the petitioner, Jitendra
Chaudhary and Kariman Chaudhary were also having illicit
relations with Arti Devi, which was also objected by the
deceased. It appears that the petitioner along with co-accused
persons, conspired to eliminate the deceased. Mangru
Chaudhary has disclosed that the petitioner was one of the
conspirators and took active part in the elimination of the
deceased. The post-mortem report of the deceased indicates a
penetrating wound caused by a sharp cutting object, and the
cause of death has been opined as penetrating injury resulting in
hypovolemic shock leading to cardio-respiratory failure.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9385 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the
nature of allegations, I do not find any reason to differ from the
impugned order. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant the
petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…