Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51818/2026bail granted

Ritu Raj @ Rahul Choudhary @ David v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-29Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51818 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2025 Thana- ISHAKCHAK District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Ritu Raj @ Rahul Choudhary @ David Son of Ranjeet Choudhary Resident of Village- Ishakchak Pasi Tola, Ps- Ishakchak, District -Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026 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 Ishakchak P.S. Case No. 160 of 2025, F.I.R dated 03.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 109, 132, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, on the basis of a Fardbeyan made by one Brajesh Kumar, a First Information Report bearing Ishakchak P.S. Case No. 160/2025, dt. 03.07.2025, was registered under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 109, 132, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. against 10 named accused persons in which the name of this petitioner has not been figured.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

2/4 instant F.I.R. has been registered against 10 named accused and 10-15 unnamed accused persons in this case. It is the case of the petitioner that nothing specific has been found in investigation and during the course of supervision, the name of this petitioner has been transpired on the basis of his past criminal antecedent, which arose from the family dispute and the same has no connection with the nature of the incident, which is said to have been taken place in which the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail. It is the case of the petitioner that merely on the basis of suspicion and for ulterior motives, the petitioner has been dragged in this case and the petitioner undertakes not to visit around the work site, where the incident in question is said to be taken place, which may given an occasion for informant to raise any suspicion or any false reason to make any accusation against him.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application in respect of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts that no allegation of specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner, and have been implicated in this case on the basis of his past antecedent, which is stated to have arisen out of a family dispute, having no connection with the alleged incident connected with this case and the petitioner

3/4 undertakes not to visit the work site, 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 A.C.J.M.-IX, Bhagalpur in connection with aforementioned P.S. Case, 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;

(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;

4/4 (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) surya/- U T