Ankit Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40142 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2026 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Ankit Kumar Sharma Son of Chitranjan Sharma R/o- Chanpatiya, Ward No.
                 06, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Kumar Prabhakar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Renu Kumari
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   29-06-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                               2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

                   16.02.2026 in connection with Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 47 of

                   2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3),

                   190, 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109(1), 111, 351(2) of BNS,

                   2023 and under Section 27 of Arms Act.

                               3. According to prosecution case, written application

                   of the informant namely Rajdev Prasad Yadav is that due to land

                   dispute one month earlier Golu Pathak and others have assaulted

                   Jaswant Yadav, Caretaker of land belongs to the informant.

                   Hence he had lodged F.I.R. against them as Chanpatiya Case

                   No.- 13/2026. About 16:00 on 12.02.2026, the informant was

                   removing unwanted grass over boundary wall of his. At that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40142 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
                                            2/4




          time the petitioner with other F.I.R accused and five unknown

          persons have reached over motor cycle and threatened the

          informant to compromise that case. On denying to do so, Golu

          Pathak has attacked over the head of the informant by knife On

          shouting, Shailendra Singh and Ghanshyam Yadav have

          attacked over both legs of the informant by bamboo and iron

          rod. Aryan Kumar has attacked by danda over wrist of the right

          hand and got it fractured. During this course, Vijay Yadav and

          some unknown person have attacked over frontal part of head of

          the informant. On shouting local people have rushed towards the

          place of occurrence. On seeing them Golu Pathak has fired by

          the gun and ran away with all others co-accused.

                      4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and it

          appears from the FIR that the petitioner is not named in the FIR

          and the name of the petitioner has transpired during

          investigation on the basis that he was present at the place of

          occurrence along with co-accused persons. He further submits

          that it appears from the FIR that specific allegation of assault is

          attributed against co-accused persons, namely, Golu Pathak,

          Aryan Kumar, Shyam Yadav and Shailendra Singh. Learned

          counsel for the petitioner next submits that police after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40142 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
                                            3/4




          investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in

          custody since 16.02.2026.

                      5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State

          has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and

          submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases other than

          the present case but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in

          the pending matters.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

          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 the learned Court of

          JM-I Class, West Champaran, Bettiah                  in connection with

          Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 47 of 2026, 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.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40142 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
                                                       4/4




                                  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)
Gaurav Sinha/-

U      T