Patna High Court

Akhilesh RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Akhilesh Ray, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a criminal case (Kopa PS Case No.164 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. He alleged that the FIR was a false implication arising from a land‑related dispute and that a parallel case (Kopa PS Case No.163 of 2025) had already been filed against him, making the present FIR a counter‑blast. The State argued that the informant was assaulted with a knife, a dangerous weapon, and that the petitioner had a prior case, raising a risk of absconding. The court examined the seriousness of the alleged assault and the possibility of the petitioner fleeing. Concluding that the allegations warranted denial of bail, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged assault with a dangerous weapon and his prior criminal antecedent.

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
assault
dangerous weapon
land dispute
false implication
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86276 of 2025

                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2025 Thana- KOPA District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Akhilesh Ray S/o Baliram Ray R/o Village- Milki Janaki Nagar, P.S- Kopa,
                 Dist- Saran.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Nalin Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   21-01-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Kopa P.S. Case No. 164 of 2025 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352 and

                   3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges

                   that on account of dispute relating to construction of Palani, the

                   accused persons came and petitioner assaulted him by dab

                   causing injury on head, while Raju assaulted by knife causing

                   injury on back and chest and the accused persons also assaulted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86276 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
                                            2/3




          his wife who came to save him.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant, it is next submitted that on account of dispute

          relating to land, an altercation had taken place in which both

          sides assaulted each other. It is also submitted that from side of

          the petitioner Kopa P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025 has been

          instituted, as such, the instant FIR is a counterblast.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes

          the anticipatory bail application and submits that no doubt on

          account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to

          have taken place, but then it is alleged that the informant was

          assaulted by knife causing injury on back and chest. It is further

          submitted that knife is a dangerous weapon and could have been

          fatal, had the knife penetrated the chest. It is also submitted that

          since accused persons were present at the place of occurrence,

          hence accused felt emboldened in committing the occurrence of

          assault by knife. It is also submitted that in the event if privilege

          of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner

          may abscond, as he has antecedent even.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86276 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
                                                        3/3




                      privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                   7. Accordingly,         the    instant   anticipatory   bail

                      application stands rejected.



Rishabh/-                                                     (Satyavrat Verma, J)

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…