Chunnu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18794 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Chunnu S/o- Khurshid Alam Resident of Village-Imadpatti, Police StationChakia, District-East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Waliur Rahman For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 132, 125, 109, 121(1), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that a woman died on account of an accident committed by an unknown car, as such, accused persons started creating ruckus and jammed the N.H., accordingly the police force reached when the accused persons assaulted the S.I. who was injured but the situation was brought under control, further the accused persons including the petitioner were identified by Chowkidar and local representative from the video footage

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18794 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026 2/2 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that no doubt the petitioner came to be identified based on video footage but then the petitioner lives adjacent to the place of occurrence and when ruckus was being created by the villagers, the petitioner out of inquisitiveness came to the place of occurrence and thus was videographed. It is next submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner in the video footage was seen assaulting the S.I. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Chakia P.S. Case No. 189 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T