Ranjeet Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33545 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-665 Year-2025 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.
Ranjeet Chaudhary S/o Late Gano Chaudhary R/o Village- Sultanpur, PSWarisaliganj, Distt- Nawada 2.
Mantu Chaudhary s/o Late Gano Chaudhary R/o Village- Sultanpur, PSWarisaliganj, Distt- Nawada 3.
Sonu Chaudhary S/o Ranjeet Chaudhary R/o Village- Sultanpur, PSWarisaliganj, Distt- Nawada 4.
Munni Devi W/o Ranjeet Chaudhary R/o Village- Sultanpur, PSWarisaliganj, Distt- Nawada 5.
Nibha Devi W/o Mantu Chaudhary R/o Village- Sultanpur, PS- Warisaliganj, Distt- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State through Virtual Mode.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 665/2025 dated 24.12.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 117(2) and 110 of the B.N.S.
3. As per the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioners is that the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioners came to the house of the informant and started
2/4 assaulting her brother-in-law (Devar) and when she tried to intervene, the petitioner no. 1 Ranjeet Chaudhary is stated to have assaulted on her head by an iron rod. It has further alleged that her Devar, namely, Rajiv Chaudhary came to her rescue but even he was assaulted and the animal hut was demolished by the petitioner no. 1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as far as the allegations are concerned, it is specifically directed towards petitioner no. 1 while there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and they are general and omnibus in nature. It has further been submitted that though there is an allegation of assault by an iron rod on the head of the informant by the petitioner no. 1, however, as it would appear from the perusal of the injury report which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 series, it would be evident that the injury was found to be simple in nature. It has next been submitted that the injury sustained by the Devar of the informant, namely, Rajiv Chaudhary was also found to be simple in nature. It has further been submitted that the petitioners and the informant are agnates and on account of some personal disputes, the entire family has been implicated in this case on false and concocted story. It has lastly been submitted that the
3/4 petitioner no. 1 has two criminal antecedents, but both under the Excise Act, while rest of the petitioners have clean antecedents.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 665/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of BNSS as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners
4/4 will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned. (iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the trial court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bonds 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.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) Gautam/Anjali U T