Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Md. Asif @ Md. AshifversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Asif, was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he deliberately rammed a motorcycle and assaulted the riders with rods, resulting in non‑grievous injuries. He sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the incident was essentially a road accident rather than a serious assault. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the charges under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The court examined the injury reports, noting that the wounds were minor, and considered the petitioner’s clean criminal record. Accordingly, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
  • Whether the nature of the injuries (non‑grievous) and the petitioner’s clean antecedent justify the grant of bail.
  • Whether the prosecution’s opposition provides sufficient ground to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • assault
  • road accident
  • non‑grievous injury
  • clean antecedent
  • conditions of bail

Judgment

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24181 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2025 Thana- BEERPUR District- Begusarai
               ======================================================
               Md. Asif @ Md. Ashif Son of Md. Sadre Alam @ Md. Sadu Resident of
               Village and P.O.- Sarauja, P.S.- Birpur, District - Begusarai.... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
               The State of Bihar                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
               ======================================================
               Appearance :
               For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate
               For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP
               ======================================================
               CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                     ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026                   Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel for the

               petitioner and Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned Additional Public

               Prosecutor for the State.

                          2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

               10.02.2026 in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 80 of 2025,

               F.I.R. dated 16.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections

               126(2), 115(2), 352, 109, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita,

               2023.

                          3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged

               that when he and his colleague were traveling and reached near

               Sarauja village Mosque, the driver of a pickup van, this petitioner

               deliberately rammed into his motorcycle from behind, damaging it.

               When they objected, the petitioner and other co-accused persons

               attacked them with rods causing severe injuries. Thereafter, the

               villagers intervened and took them to private hospital for primary

               treatment and later they were admitted to P.H.C Birpur.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24181 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
                                            2/3




                   4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

      petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated

      in the present case. From bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the

      present case is simple road accident case but informant had alleged

      that petitioner and other co-accused persons have assaulted him

      and his colleague. Although the informant and his colleague had

      received injury but the injury report of the injured persons suggest

      that injury inflicted upon them is not grievous in nature. The

      relevant paragraph of the impugned order describing the injuries

      sustained by the injured persons is reproduced hereinbelow:

                    “In para 50, the injury report of the injured
                    Ranjeet Kumar shows a lacerated wound 1.5” x
                    0.5”cm on the scalp caused by hard and blunt
                    object. As per para 53 of the case diary, the injury
                    report of the injured Shashikant Kumar shows
                    swelling 3” x 1” inch over the left side of skull
                    caused by hard and blunt object.”
                   5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

      vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as

      well as the fact that petitioner has clean antecedent and taking into

      consideration the nature of the injury inflicted upon the informant,

      let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing

      bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24181 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                  like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C-cum-

                  A.M., Begusarai in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 80 of

                  2025, subject to 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                   reason, his 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

                  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)
Suruchi/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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