Ranvijay Choudhary @ Ran Vijay Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14784 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2025 Thana- MORO District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Ranvijay Choudhary @ Ran Vijay Chaudhary S/O Late Ram Krishan Chaudhary R/o Village- Goddaipatti, P.S.- Moro District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mrs.Rina Sinha, APP For the Informant : Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Moro P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352, 303(2), 110, 76, 3(5) of B.N.S.

3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons, who were armed with sharp Garasa, Dabiya and Tengari (axe), caught hold of the informant and assaulted him. The petitioner gave a Tengari blow on the head of the informant causing its fracture and he also snatched

2/4 Rs.19,700/- from the pocket of the informant. The female family members of the informant were also assaulted and their ornaments were snatched by the assailants.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegations are false and concocted. The parties are covillagers and there is dispute over right of way. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he gave Tengari blow on the head of the informant but no such injury has been found and a lacerated wound on right side parietal region of size 4cm x 2cm x 1cm was found and its nature stated to be simple. This falsifies the allegation against the petitioner that he gave Tengari blow on the head of the informant. Other allegation about snatching of money is not believable. There is case and counter case and the sister-in-law of the petitioner has lodged Moro P.S. Case No. 76 of 2025 which has been registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 303(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is having antecedent of one case in which he has been granted bail.

5. Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

3/4 informant submits that the proceeding under Section 82 of CrPC has been initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 23.02.2026 by the learned trial court.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been absconding as he has filed an application for anticipatory bail before the court concerned prior to the issuance of process under Section 82 of CrPC and this fact is clear from the rejection order which has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII on 03.02.2026.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the absence of injury attributed to the petitioner and also considering the possibility of false implication, let the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga/concerned court in connection with Moro P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and other following

4/4 conditions :

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U T