Kameshwar Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 17-09-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶13

A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Indrapuri P.S. Case No. 68 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNSS Act, 2023.

¶15

As per prosecution case, petitioners and other armed with spade and iron dab assaulted upon the head of informant as a result of which informant sustained injury on the head. It is further alleged that informant's husband was assaulted by handle of spade. It is further alleged that co-accused Rahul Kumar assaulted the informant's son Ranjeet Kumar by means

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64665 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 2/3

¶17

of sharp portion of spade as a result of which informant's son sustained injury on the back. It is further alleged that co-accused Rahul Kumar assaulted the informant, informant's husband and informant's son. It is further alleged that all the accused persons threatened the informant and his family members that if any case is lodged, they will be killed. It is further alleged that accused persons snatched gold locket and jitiya from the neck of the informant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and they have falsely been implicated in this case. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. Specific allegation of assault is against co-accused Rahul Kumar. He further submits that all the injuries of injured are simple in nature, as mentioned in the impugned order. Petitioner no. 1 bears no criminal antecedent whereas petitioner no. 2 bears criminal antecedent of one case in which he is on bail, as orally submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶19

The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that name of the petitioners finds place in the FIR and they cannot escape

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64665 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 3/3

¶21

from the allegation made in the prosecution story.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶23

case, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners, all the injuries of injured are simple in nature, as mentioned in the impugned order, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Indrapuri P.S. Case No. 68 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.

¶24

The application stands allowed.

¶25

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶26

shahzad/-

¶27

U T

Kameshwar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kameshwar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Yadav @ Arun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shailendra Kumar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Dilip Ravidas Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Minaj @ Balo Vs The State of Bihar

Subhash kumar @ Subash kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Upendra Sao @ Upendra Sav Vs The State of Bihar