Aashish Yadav @ Aashish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18605 of 2026

                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
                 ======================================================
                 Aashish Yadav @ Aashish Kumar S/O Pankaj Yadav @ Subodh Yadav
                 Resident of Village- Tofir Tola, K.D. College Road, P.S.- Gogri, District-
                 Khagaria


                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar


                                                                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                                   ORAL ORDER


2   07-05-2026                   1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109,

                   303(2), 329(4), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with

                   Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of seven cases and is in the custody

                   17.12.2025 and the informant alleges that on 25.07.2025 in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18605 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
                                            2/4




          between 9-10:30 PM, he was at his rice mill when 8 accused

          persons including petitioner came and started assaulting his

          truck driver Sikandar, when informant tried to save him, the

          accused persons vandalized three vehicles and assaulted

          Sikandar brutally and Dharmendra looted Rs. two lakhs, while

          petitioner snatched his chain, it is next alleged that the

          informant tried calling 112, but there was no response, but

          somehow the informant managed to reach the police station

          when accused persons again came and started firing with an

          intent to create terror, in the firing Manoj @ Aryan suffered

          firearm injury on his right thigh, further police came when

          accused fled leaving motorcycle number BR-51-K-2242, further

          reason for the occurrence is Dharmendra was honking for pass,

          but the road was narrow hence his truck driver Sikandar could

          not give pass, which enraged Dharmendar and the occurrence

          was committed.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in

          the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from

          perusal of that allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would

          manifest that thrust of the allegation is against Dharmendra and

          petitioner is alleged to have snatched the chain of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18605 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
                                            3/4




          It is also submitted that even allegation of firing is alleged, but

          then the same is not specific.

                       5.   The Learned APP for the State vehemently

          opposes the regular bail application of the petitioner and

          submits petitioner has antecedent of seven serious cases, but

          then fairly submits that in the FIR, it is alleged that petitioner

          snatched the chain of the informant, but thereafter draws the

          attention of the Court to the order impugned to submit that the

          same records that at Para 76 of the case diary, it has come that

          petitioner was also involved in firing, on which the learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that from

          perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest

          that petitioner was known to the informant and if petitioner had

          fired in that event, the informant would have specifically named

          him in the FIR that it was petitioner who fired, but since he

          carries antecedent of 7 cases, as such, during the course of

          investigation he was roped with the said allegation also.

                       6. At this stage, the learned APP for the State submits

          that if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner may

          abscond or try to tamper with the evidence

                       7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

          the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18605 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
                                                        4/4




                                   8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to

                      renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

                                   9. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application

                      stands rejected.



                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T