Ashish Kumar @ Ashish RanjanversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22859 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-347 Year-2025 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Ranjan S/O Tuntun Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh
                 @ Rakesh Singh R/O Village - Raghunathpur,P.S- Tajpur(O.P Halai), Dist-
                 Samastipur

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
                                          :        Mr.Shivam, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Binod Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                     Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr.Binod Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   24.12.2025 in connection with Jandaha (Mahisaur) P.S. Case

                   No. 347 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 16.08.2025 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 126(2),127(2),103,61(2), 3(5)

                   of BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                 3. Specific allegation against co-accused person,

                   namely, Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary @ Golu Kumar is that he shot

                   the son of the informant in the head and Manjit Kumar shot him

                   in the chest. Further allegation against the petitioner and co-

                   accused person, namely, Sonu Kumar is that they also fired but

                   missed their target and the son of the informant fell down and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22859 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                            2/4




          died on the spot.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

          submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. Although the

          petitioner is named in the FIR but from a bare perusal of the FIR

          it appears that there is specific allegation of firing attributed

          against co-accused persons, namely, Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary

          @ Golu Kumar and Manjit Kumar. Thereafter the petitioner and

          other co-accused person have also fired upon the victim but the

          same is not hit on the person of the deceased. Learned counsel

          for the petitioner submits that the allegation as alleged in the

          FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed

          any offence as alleged in the FIR and petitioner has been made

          accused in the present case due to some ulterior motive but from

          a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is specific

          allegation of firing attributed against co-accused persons,

          namely, Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary @ Golu Kumar and Manjit

          Kumar. Further submits that the similarly situated co-accused

          person, namely, Ramanand Chaudhary @ Chunni Chaudhary

          has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble

          Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.663

          of 2026 and the police, after investigation, submitted the

          chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22859 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                            3/4




          since 24.12.2025.

                       5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer

          for bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has clean

          antecedent, other co-accused persons have fired upon the victim

          and similarly situated co-accused person has been granted bail

          by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, let the petitioner,

          above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of

          Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial

          Magistrate-VII, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Jandaha

          (Mahisaur) P.S. Case No. 347 of 2025,                with the following

          conditions:-

                       (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and

          on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

          reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                       (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

          witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

          for cancellation of bail.

                       (III) And, further condition that the court below shall
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22859 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                           4/4




                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                         criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                         acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                         shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                         verification.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T