Chandan Ram Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33090 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- DAWATH District- Rohtas

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Chandan Ram S/o Bhutan Ram @ Butan Ram R/o Village- Chatra, P.S.Dawath, District- Rohtas

¶5

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Ram S/o Bajrangi Ram R/o Village- Chatra, P.S.Dawath, District- Rohtas

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 20-07-2026 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh,learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, learned APP for the State.

¶10

The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Dawath P.S. Case No.184 of 2025 dated 10.06.2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 223, 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶11

As per the FIR, on receiving secret information, the

¶12

police party reached the place of occurrence and found that more than 100 villagers had assembled and blocked the highway. The villagers informed the police that the owner of Fauji Line Hotel had assaulted some persons and had also opened fire. They further disclosed that the alleged shooters, Sonu and Lalan, were hiding in the hotel along with their family members. Accordingly, the police raided the hotel and apprehended the owner of Fauji Line Hotel, from whose possession cartridges were recovered. However, upon seeing

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33090 of 2026(3) dt.20-07-2026 2/3

¶14

the apprehended owner, the mob became enraged, created a ruckus and obstructed the police personnel in the discharge of their official duties. The entire occurrence was videographed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is only a general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. It is further submitted that although 12 persons have been made accused in the FIR along with about 100 unknown persons, no specific overt act has been attributed to these petitioners. The allegation is that the named accused persons, along with the unknown persons, blocked the road for about three hours. It is further submitted that for similar allegations, similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.17009 of 2026. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner no.1 has one criminal antecedent, whereas petitioner no.2 has no criminal antecedent.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail, let the above

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33090 of 2026(3) dt.20-07-2026 3/3

¶19

named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M, Bikramganj (Rohtas)/Successor Court in connection with Dawath P.S. Case No.184 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under

¶20

Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:

¶21

(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;

¶22

(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;

¶23

(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;

¶24

(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.

¶25

shikha/-

¶26

U T

Chandan Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Ram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Serajul Devan Vs The State of Bihar

Sindhu Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Mirtunjay Bind @ Mirtunjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Meera Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Prabhakar Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar