CR. MISC./21622/2026 of Lalan Chaudhary @ Lalan Pd. Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar on 17 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

17-08-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that she was married to Nitesh, it is next alleged that the accused persons sent her back to her parental home along with the two children, it is further alleged that seven named accused including the petitioners killed her husband on 24.11.2025 and when she reached the place of occurrence, the police had taken away the dead body for postmortem, next alleges that earlier Nikesh had killed his own elder brother in greed of property and married his widow, thus alleges that accused persons after hatching a conspiracy sent her back to her parental home and killed her husband in greed of property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant being father-in-law and sister-in-law (gotni) of the informant. It is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that a father would kill his own son. It is further submitted that no doubt Nikesh had married the wife of his elder brother but then had not killed his elder brother. It is also submitted that after the elder brother of Nikesh and Nitesh was killed, the petitioner no. 1 herein had instituted an FIR against unknown but during the course of investigation the name of Nikesh appeared as such he was made an accused but ultimately in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 2007, Nikesh was acquitted by a judgement dated 25.1.2022 as would manifest from pleadings made at para 15 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that petitioner no. 2 is wife of Nikesh. It is further submitted that investigation in the case is continuing and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners will not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation to prove their innocence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners but then is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are father-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioners are father and sister-in-law of the deceased, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender 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 the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 382 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

7. However, it is made clear that in the event, if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioners, despite giving assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the investigation, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned police station through the learned Trial Court.

Sumit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T