Ankit Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.87 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2025 Thana- TILAUTHU District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Ankit Kumar Sharma Son of Anand Sharma R/o Village - Itawa, P.S. -
                 Karakat, Dist. - Rohtas.

                                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Awadhesh Ram Son of Late Jaikaram Ram R/o Village - Chorkap, P.S. -
                 Tilauthu, Dist. - Rohtas.

                                                                  ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s : Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State       : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   15-04-2026                Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

                  Spl. P.P. for the State.

                              2. This is an appeal under Scheduled Castes and

                  Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

                  (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal

                  of prayer for bail vide order dated 23.08.2025 passed by the

                  learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Sasaram in

                  connection with Tilauthu P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025 registered

                  for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the

                  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 3(2)(v) of the

                  SC/ST Act.

                              3. The case of the respondent, in short, is that two
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.87 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
                                             2/3




          unknown persons on a bike have killed the son of the

          respondent.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          during course of investigation it has come that one Abhimanyu,

          the younger brother of the deceased was having illicit

          relationship with the wife of the deceased and he has hatched

          the plan to remove the deceased. Learned counsel for the

          appellant has further submitted that Abhimanyu has taken help

          of the shooters to kill the deceased. From perusal of the

          confessional statement of Abhimanyu Paswan it is clear that he

          has handed over Rs.20,000/- in cash and on the date of

          occurrence, the appellant and one Vikash went on a bike;

          Abhimanyu identified the deceased and on his identification

          Vikash fired on the head of the deceased. Learned counsel for

          the appellant has further submitted that Vikash has also given

          his confessional statement and has stated that he has fired at the

          deceased in continuance with the plan and has further stated that

          he has given the weapon of assault to the appellant who has

          concealed the same. It is stated that the appellant has also given

          his statement and has stated that he has concealed the weapon in

          the bushes and the weapon was recovered from there. Learned

          counsel for the appellant has submitted that save and except
            Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.87 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                      confessional statement, there is nothing against the appellant.

                                   5. Countering this, learned Special Public Prosecutor

                      for the State has vehemently opposed the bail and has stated that

                      from the statement of Vikash Kumar and the appellant, this

                      much is clear that both were riding on a bike which was being

                      driven by the appellant and Vikash has fired at the deceased due

                      to which he died. It has further been submitted that the weapon

                      of assault was being concealed by the appellant in the bushes

                      and this statement of the appellant is relevant and admissible. It

                      has further been submitted that in the FIR it is clear that two

                      persons on a bike have come and assaulted the deceased which

                      is supported by the statement of Vikash and this appellant.

                                   6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of

                      the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at this

                      stage, however, he may renew his prayer for bail after six

                      months, if the trial is not concluded. Learned trial court is

                      directed to expedite the trial.



                                             (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T