Ram Prakash Choudhary @ Ram Prakash Chaudhari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32622 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-591 Year-2025 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.
Ram Prakash Choudhary @ Ram Prakash Chaudhari S/o Late Devanand Chodhri @ Late Buddhu Choudhary @ Guddu Choudhary R/o Driver tola, Rambagh, P.S.- Sadar, Distt.- Purnea 2.
Ranjeet Choudhary @ Ranjit Choudhary @Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary S/o Late Rameshwar Choudhary R/o Driver Tola, Rambagh, P.S.- Sadar, Distt.- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since 16.02.2026, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 591 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 29.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he is selling the duplicate pesticides/insecticide without a valid license.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have clean antecedents and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32622 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 2/3 allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the seizure list that there is non compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the B.N.S.S. As per allegation in the F.I.R. the petitioners are selling the duplicate pesticides/insecticide without a valid license which was found in the house of the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are not the socalled owner of the articles in question and hence no case is made out under the Copyright Act, 1957 and Trade Marks Act, 1999. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and the petitioners are in custody since 16.02.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners having clean antecedents and there is non compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the B.N.S.S. as well as the petitioners are not the so-called owner of the articles in question and hence no case is made out under the Copyright Act, 1957 and Trade Marks Act, 1999, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32622 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 3/3 the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 591 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-
(1) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T