Akalu Noniya @ Akalu Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56810 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2025 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Akalu Noniya @ Akalu Chauhan S/O Vishwanath Noniya @ Late Vishavnath Noniya @ Vishawnath Noniya Resident of Village- Jagadatpur, Police Station- Kargahar, District- Rohtas 2.
Baliram Noniya @ Baliram Chauhan @ Baliram Chouhan S/O Vishwanath Chauhan @ Late Vishawnath Chauhan Resident of Village- Jagadatpur, Police Station- Kargahar, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin Mr. Ashwani Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. Earlier, vide order dated 10.12.2025, the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no. 1 was withdrawn at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner, since he had already been arrested during the pendency of the said bail application.
3. Now, this bail application is being heard with regard to the petitioner no.2 only.
4. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No.133 of 2025, registered
2/4 for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
5. As per the FIR, the informant alleged that his daughter was forcibly fed poison on 04.05.2025 by her husband and in-laws. She was taken to PHC Karahgar, then referred to Sadar Hospital, Sasaram, and finally to Narayan Medical College and Hospital, where she was declared dead.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 2 is the brother of petitioner no. 1, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, and that he had no involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the deceased or her husband. It is next submitted that the husband and father-in-law of the deceased are already in judicial custody, while the mother-in-law of the deceased has recently been granted the privilege of regular bail. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
7. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the informant submits that mediation had taken place prior to the incident, in which petitioner no. 2 was also a party, and since the undertaking given
3/4 by him was not complied with, he opposes the prayer for bail of petitioner no. 2. However, he does not dispute the factual position that there is nothing against petitioner no. 2 in the FIR.
9. Taking into consideration that there is nothing specific against the petitioner no.2 in the FIR, let the above named petitioner no.2, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Rohtas at Sasaram/Successor Court in connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No.133 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document 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
4/4 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) shikha/- U T