Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6129 (PAT)

Kapil Chauhan @ Kapil Deo Chauhan v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./8156/2026 · 2026-02-24

Shailendra Singh

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8156 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2025 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada ====================================================== 1. Kapil Chauhan @ Kapil Deo Chauhan, Son of Late Jiwlal Chauhan @ Jival Chauhan, Resident of Village- Pali, P.S.- Kawakole, District- Nawada 2. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Son of Rajendra Chauhan @ Rajindra Chauhan, Resident of Village- Pali, P.S.- Kawakole, District- Nawada 3. Suresh Chauhan, Son of Rajendra Chauhan @ Rajindra Chauhan, Resident of Village- Pali, P.S.- Kawakole, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 24-02-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Kawakole P.S. Case No. 331 of 2025 dated 16.08.2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR itself shows that the main allegation is against co- accused Manoj Chauhan and all the petitioners have been simply named in the FIR without revealing their specific role in the commission of the alleged assault and other allegations levelled against the petitioners, Raj Kumar Chauhan and Suresh Chauhan, are ornamental. It is further submitted that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8156 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have only one criminal antecedent each while the petitioner No. 3 has no criminal antecedent and the informant sustained simple injuries in the alleged occurrence, whose injury report has been filed with this petition and admittedly, there is land dispute in between both the parties. 4. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, considering the above-stated statements and the petitioners’ pleas, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, let the petitioners named- above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with Kawakole P.S. Case No. 331 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. annu/- (Shailendra Singh, J) U T