Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26344/2026bail granted

Suraj Chaudhary @ Suraj Kumar Chaudhary @ Suraj Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-16Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26344 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Suraj Chaudhary @ Suraj Kumar Chaudhary @ Suraj Choudhary S/O Late Sunil Chaudhary Resident of village- Professor Colony, Ward No 21, Near Old S.R.A.P College, Chakiya P.S.- Chakiya District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Lal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chakiya P.S. Case No.230 of 2025, F.I.R dated 12.05.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, on 10.05.2025 at about 9:00 p.m., the informant's husband was allegedly called by the accused persons, including the petitioner Suraj Chaudhary, to the old S.R.A.P. College on the pretext of settling previous dues. It is alleged that the accused assaulted the informant's husband and two others with knives and a hasuli, causing

2/4 injuries. Specifically, the petitioner and co-accused Pawan Kumar are alleged to have inflicted a hasuli blow on the informant's husband's abdomen, while co-accused Chandan Kumar Gupta allegedly assaulted him with a knife and snatched his gold chain. The occurrence is stated to have arisen out of a dispute regarding unpaid labour charges, following which the FIR was instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has next been submitted that by referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R., he submits that the specific allegation of having assaulted the informant's husband by means of hasuli and knife is upon Pawan Kumar and the petitioner is in no way connected with the dispute of wages rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. However, at this stage, on instructions, the petitioners propose to provide Rs.5,000/- as financial assistance towards the medical treatment of the injured person.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the specific allegation of having assaulted the informant's

3/4 husband by means of hasuli and knife is upon Pawan Kumar and the petitioner is in no way connected with the dispute of wages rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Motihari, East Champaran, in connection with Chakiya P.S. Case No.230 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

4/4 (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T