Raju Tudu Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶12

learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioners seek bail in connection with

¶14

Amarpur P.S. Case No. 728 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 193(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 132, 121(1), 121(2), 352 and 352(2) of B.N.S.

¶15

As per prosecution-case, on secret information

¶16

regarding illegal manufacturing and transportation of liquor, informant and other proceeded towards the place of occurrence. Two persons on a motorcycle were intercepted for checking, but they refused and started abusing and pushing the police party. Thereafter, 25 to 30 persons armed with sticks, Iron rods and

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90419 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026 2/3

¶18

lethal weapons, including 11 named and 15 unknown persons, came and attacked the police team.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Petitioners are not even named in the F.I.R. Their names have been dragged in this case on the basis of statement of local Chowkidar who is on inimical terms with petitioner No.1 and father-in-law of petitioner No.2. It is orally submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Apart from that, petitioners are having no criminal antecedent and petitioners are in custody since 12.10.2025. Hence, they deserve bail.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer of bail and submitted that there are three injured persons from the informant side. Two injuries are simple and one is grievous in nature. Hence, petitioners do not deserve bail.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, petitioners are not even named in the F.I.R., clean antecedent of the petitioners, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioners above named be

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90419 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026 3/3

¶23

released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 728 of 2025, subject to following conditions:-

¶24

(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application.

¶25

(ii) Petitioners will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.

¶26

(iii) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶27

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶28

K.C.Jha/-

¶29

U T

Raju Tudu v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Tudu 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

Tayazuddin @ Teyazuddin Sheikh Vs The State of Bihar

Basanti Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Munchun Kumar @ Bittu Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Pritam Kumar @ Ghutra @ Pritam Kumar Ghutra Vs The State of Bihar

Mithilesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar