Pawan Dubey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11786 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2025 Thana- SANICHARI District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Pawan Dubey S/O Late Bhulan Dubey R/O Bahuarwa Gora, Ward No. 08, P.S.- Sanichari, District- West Champaran 2.
Chitranjan Dubey @ Chitranjan Kumar Dubey S/O Anil Dubey R/O Bahuarwa Gora, Ward No. 08, P.S.- Sanichari, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Informant :
Mr. Abhyanand, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Sanichari P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 76, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the named accused persons all variously armed assaulted the informant and other family members including the ladies with iron rod, farsa and lathi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
2/4 though there is specific allegation of assault upon the two petitioners, however, one of the injured to which the petitioner no. 2 had assaulted had sustained simple injuries while the person who had been assaulted by the petitioner no. 1 had received grievous injuries. It has further been submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against all and therefore the injuries having been inflicted by the petitioners, cannot be said with conviction. It is further submitted that there is counter case lodged on behalf of the petitioners' side also and it is on account of long standing land dispute between the parties that the occurrence had taken place. It has also been submitted that a Title Suit is also pending between the parties, however, in order to settle the same, the present false and concocted case had been lodged. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has four criminal antecedents and petitioner no. 2 has one criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and have stated that the petitioners had brutally assaulted the informant and others causing grievous injuries. It has further been submitted that the petitioner no. 1 was carrying farsa and therefore the intentions
3/4 to kill was very clear. It has further been submitted that multiple injuries have been sustained by the injured persons and therefore, the petitioners do not deserved to grant the liberty of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner no. 1 namely Pawan Dubey and hence, the application as against the petitioner no. 1 stands dismissed.
7. However, with regard to allegations levelled upon petitioner no. 2 and the specific allegation of assault on the injured, which was found to be simple, the petitioner no. 2 namely Chitranjan Dubey @ Chitranjan Kumar Dubey is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Sanichari P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS and subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors will be a
4/4 close relative of the petitioner no. 2 and the other shall be a local resident:
(ii) the petitioner no. 2 will remain present on each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the learned Trial Court;
(iii) in case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioner no. 2 will liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned;
(iv) the Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no. 2 and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner no. 2 has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner no. 2. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of the same on in the name of verification.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) krishna/- U T