Patna High Court
Ashok Sah @ Ashok Gupta @ Ashok KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petitioner’s application for regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Sah, applied for regular bail in a Sessions trial for offences under IPC sections 326, 307, 120(B) and Arms Act section 27, alleging that he is not named in the FIR and his name appears only in the confessional statements of co‑accused who have already been granted bail. He highlighted his six prior cases and his custody since 11‑03‑2025, arguing that the earlier bail orders show a precedent for his release. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner’s antecedent record, the seriousness of the charges, and the risk of tampering with material witnesses justify denial of bail. The court examined the submissions and found the risk of absconding and evidence tampering outweighs the petitioner’s arguments. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, ordering that the petitioner remain in custody.
Issues considered
- Whether a person whose name appears only in co‑accused confessional statements, and not in the FIR, is entitled to regular bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent criminal record and the possibility of tampering with witnesses warrant denial of bail.
- Whether the grant of bail to other co‑accused creates a binding precedent for granting bail to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 307, 326
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- criminal conspiracy
- antecedent cases
- witness tampering
- confessional statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2785 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Ashok Sah @ Ashok Gupta @ Ashok Kumar S/o Late Ram Ekbal Sah R/o
village - Dumariya @ Dumaria, ward no. 13, P.S. - Bathnaha, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Trial No.610
of 2025 arising out of Chhauradano P. S. Case No.84 of 2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307,
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of six cases and is in custody since
11.03.2025. It is further submitted that Jai Prakash Thakur had
approached this Court seeking bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.76815
of 2024 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
18.01.2025. It is next submitted that while granting the privilege
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2785 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
of bail to Jai Prakash Thakur, the case was considered on merits
and in detail. It is also submitted that petitioner is not named in
the FIR and his named transpired in the confessional statement
of Deepesh and Bhajju. It is further submitted that the case is of
committing firing by unknown accused causing three injuries to
the informant and informant alleged in the FIR that the firing
was done at the behest of Jai Prakash and other named accused
persons. It is submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR
and his name transpired in the confessional statement of
Deepesh and Bhajju and Bhajju Thakur was granted the
privilege of regular bail by an order dated 08.8.2025 in Cr.
Misc. No.55856 of 2025 and Dipesh Kumar was granted the
privilege of regular bail by order dated 13.10.2025 in Cr. Misc.
No.48973 of 2025. It is thus submitted that accused in whose
confession the name of the petitioner transpired have been
granted the privilege of bail, as such, petitioner be also granted
the said privilege.
4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and
submits that petitioner has antecedent of six cases and if
privilege of regular bail is granted the petitioner may abscond. It
is also submitted that the order impugned also records that trial
has commenced and out of eight charge-sheet witnesses, two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2785 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
witnesses have been examined but then they are not material
witnesses. It is thus submitted that release of petitioner on bail
may cause threat to the material witnesses who are yet to be
examined and the petitioner may try to tamper with the
evidence. It is also submitted that from perusal of Para-3 of the
regular bail application, it would manifest that petitioner has
serious cases pending against him under Arms Act, NDPS Act
etc. It is further submitted that Jai Prakash was granted bail
since he is agnate of the petitioner and apprehended accused did
not disclose his name.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
6. The prayer of the petitioner for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…