Patna High Court
Ashok KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant regular bail to the petitioners in both matters.
Summary
The petitioners, Pramod Kumar, Vikash Kumar and others, were charged in Tekari police case No.121 of 2025 for offences under several sections of the B.N.S., alleged to have assaulted the son of an informant on a motorcycle. The informant’s son was reportedly injured by lathi, iron rod and stones, while the petitioners claim they were falsely implicated and that the informant was not an eye‑witness. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing that the assault was serious and the FIR, though based on second‑hand information, detailed multiple injuries. The petitioners contended that a dispute over a dipper and the deceased’s own aggression caused the incident, and that there was no intent to murder. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant regular bail, stating the petitioners could re‑apply after charge‑framing. The same reasoning was applied in the second related bail petition, resulting in its rejection as well.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail pending trial for offences under sections 126(1), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 324(4), 324(5) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the lack of an eye‑witness and the nature of the allegations justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115, 117, 118, 126, 3, 324
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- FIR
- charge framing
- Bihar
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55165 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Pramod Kumar S/O Sri Akhilesh Yadav R/O Village-Mahmanna, PS-Tekari,
Distt-Gaya
2. Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Yadav S/O Lalu Yadav R/O Village-Mahmanna,
PS-Tekari, Distt-Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 61982 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Ashok Kumar S/o- Udaya Yadav Village- Mahmanna Ps- Tekari Dist- Gaya
2. Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar S/o- Late Hiraman Yadav Village-
Mahmanna Ps- Tekari Dist- Gaya
3. Mayum Kumar @ Mayum Yadav @ Mochin Yadav S/o- Surendra Yadav
Village- Mahmanna Ps- Tekari Dist- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 55165 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur
Ms.Vaishnavi Singh
Mr.Ritwik Thakur
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh
Mr.Manish Kumar No.2
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 61982 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur
Mr.Ashok Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari
Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55165 of 2025
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55165 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/4
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Tekari
P. S. Case No.121 of 2025 instituted for the offences under
Sections 126(1), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 324(4),
324(5), 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
informant alleges that on 07.03.2025 at about 11.00 P.M. his son
along with his friends were returning home after attending a
ceremony on a motorcycle and when they reached near a school,
they were stopped by the accused persons. Further, the accused
persons assaulted his son by lathi, danda, iron rod and stones
causing head injury.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It is also
submitted that during course of investigation, it transpired that
friends of the deceased, who were sitting behind on the
motorcycle, did not receive any injury in the occurrence. It is
thus submitted that since the deceased was driving a motorcycle
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55165 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/4
with his friends sitting behind and on account of issue of using
dipper, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next
submitted that since the deceased was an army personnel, as
such, he also got enraged and started a fight on account of
which, the occurrence took place, but then, it is submitted that
petitioners are not criminals.
5. The learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail
application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposes the bail application and submits that no
doubt, the allegation of assault is not specific and informant is
not an eye witness to the occurrence, but then, it was friend of
the deceased, who disclosed about the occurrence to the
informant based on which, the FIR came to be instituted. It is
fairly submitted that allegation of assault is not specific, but
then, the deceased received more than ten injuries which amply
demonstrates that the manner in which he was assaulted, but
then, the friends of the deceased did not receive any injury in
the occurrence, on which the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that since a dispute with regard
to use of dipper arose and the deceased being an Army
Personnel started the fight on account of which, the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55165 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/4
persons including the villagers assaulted him, but then, it cannot
be said that the accused persons had any intention of committing
the occurrence of murder.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
7. The prayer of the petitioners for regular bail stands
rejected.
8. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to
renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 61982 of 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The Court is not inclined to release the petitioners
on bail.
3. The prayer of the petitioners for regular bail stands
rejected.
4. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to
renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.