Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ashish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the allegations of assault causing grievous injury were substantiated by medical report and witnesses.

Summary

Ashish Kumar, a 21‑year‑old, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in an FIR alleging that he, along with two unknown persons, attacked the son of an informant with an iron rod, causing a grievous head injury and threatening his life. The petitioner claimed false implication and highlighted a delay of one month and six days in lodging the FIR, asserting a clean antecedent. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the assault, the medical report confirming a skull fracture, corroborative witness statements, and the recovery of the alleged motorcycle used in the offence. The court examined the FIR, the medical evidence, and the witness testimonies, finding the allegations substantiated and the injury grievous. Consequently, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail, concluding that the seriousness of the offence outweighed the petitioner's claims.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged assault causing grievous injury.
  • Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the claim of false implication justify granting bail.

Legislation cited

  • BNS — s. 110, 115(2), 118(1), 126(1), 3(5), 352(5)

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • false implication
  • assault
  • grievous injury
  • FIR delay
  • high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22406 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2025 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 Ashish Kumar, aged about 21 yeas, Male, son of Ghanshyam Das, resident of
                 village- Lalu Token Piprahi, Ward No. 01, P.S.- Gamhariya, District-
                 Madhepura

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Pooja Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
                 MALVIYA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(1),

                   115(2), 118(1), 110, 352(5) and 3(5) of the BNS.

                                3. Allegation against the petitioner and other two

                   unknown persons is that they came on a motorcycle and

                   attacked the son of the informant by means of iron rod causing

                   injury on the head of the informant and also threatened to kill

                   the son of the informant.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next

                   submits that the first information report has been lodged after
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22406 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                      2/2




                    one month and six days but there is no plausible explanation has

                    been given by the informant as stated in para-8 of the petition

                    and petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the

                    petition.

                                 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                    anticipatory bail of the petition and submits that there is direct

                    allegation against the petitioner for assaulting the son of the

                    informant, due to which, head injury fracture on skull of injured

                    Arun Yadav.

                                 6. On perusal of the first information report and

                    impugned order dated 17.10.2025, it appears that the doctor has

                    found head injury fracture on skull of injured Arun Yadav which

                    is grievous in nature and several witnesses have supported the

                    case of the prosecution vide para nos.3, 4, 7 and 8 and further in

                    case diary of para-34 shows the production of the used

                    motorcycle as alleged in the commission of the occurrence, so I

                    am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

                    petitioner is hereby rejected.



                                         (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Brajesh Kumar/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.