Ram Jiwan Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89562 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2024 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.
Ram Jiwan Chaudhary Son of late Dahu Chaudhary Resident of villageDeokuli, P.S.- Tehta, District- Jehanabad 2.
Dharmveer Chaudhary @ Dharmveer Kumar Son of Ram Jiwan Chaudhary Resident of village- Deokuli, P.S.- Tehta, District- Jehanabad 3.
Birwal Chaudhary @ Bilendra Kumar Son of Ram Jiwan Chaudhary Resident of village- Deokuli, P.S.- Tehta, District- Jehanabad 4.
Durga Chaudhary @ Durga Kumar Son of Krishna Chaudhary Resident of village- Deokuli, P.S.- Tehta, District- Jehanabad 5.
Azad Chaudhary son of Krishna Chaudhary Resident of village- Deokuli, P.S.- Tehta, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. Paras Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Sumiran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 229 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 11.05.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2/4
3. According to prosecution case, the petitioners and other co-accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the informant's husband, son and father-in-law with rod and khanti and also destroyed the asbestos roof.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the 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. There is case and counter case between the parties. From perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that there is no specific allegation of assault against the petitioners rather the allegation are general and omnibus in nature. The injury sustained by the father-in-law, son and husband of the informant are found to be simple.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioners have clean antecedent, there is case and counter case, there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act against the petitioners, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of
3/4 thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jehanabad in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 229 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions: i. 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 her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. 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 antecedent, 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
4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ranjeet/- U T