Patna High Court
Ashwini Vatsya @ Ashwani VatsversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to bond and surety conditions, and retained the power of the trial court to cancel the bail if cooperation with the investigation is not forthcoming.
Summary
The petitioners, Ashwini Vatsya and Awanish Vats, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 103, 61, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. The informant alleged that his son Rahul was shot by Prem Shankar Jha and that the petitioners, being Prem's sons, were present at the scene, but the FIR did not disclose who informed the informant of their presence nor directly implicate the petitioners. The petitioners argued they have clean antecedents, are students, and that the allegations are rooted in a family dispute over a love marriage, making the FIR insufficient to justify their arrest. The State opposed the bail, but could not rebut the claim that the FIR lacks specific accusation against the petitioners. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each and a condition that the trial court may cancel the bail if the petitioners fail to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR discloses sufficient grounds to justify the arrest of the petitioners.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in the present circumstances.
- Whether the petitioners' claim of false implication and clean antecedent warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103, 3(5), 61
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- FIR
- Arms Act
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- family dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87421 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2025 Thana- Benta District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Ashwini Vatsya @ Ashwani Vats Son of Prem Shankar Jha Resident of
Village - Banagaon, P.S. - Banagaon, District - Saharsa.
2. Awanish Vats @ Avnish Vatsya Son of Prem Shankar Jha Resident of Village
- Banagaon, P.S. - Banagaon, District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Kriti Suman Tiwary, Advocate
Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 24-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 61,
3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent the informant
alleges that he received an information on 05.08.2025 at 5.30
P.M. that his son Rahul was shot at DMCH gate, further his son
was shot by Prem Shankar Jha, father of Tanu Priya, accordingly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87421 of 2025(4) dt.24-04-2026
2/5
he came to the place of occurrence and came to know that Prem
Shankar Jha along with his sons i.e. petitioners and wife Gunjan
Kumari had come, next alleges that his son about two months
back had performed love marriage with Tanu Priya, daughter of
Prem Shankar Jha, as they were studying in first year of nursing
at B.Sc. Nursing College, next alleges that Prem Shankar Jha
had threatened earlier to kill and had also filed a case at
Banagaon P.S. and statement of Tanu Priya was recorded in the
Court, thereafter Tanu Priya came at informant’s place.
4. 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
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. It is next
submitted that the allegations are in two parts, in the first part,
the informant alleges that on 05.08.2025 at 5.30 P.M. he
received an information that his son was killed by Prem Shankar
Jha, thereafter he came to the place of occurrence and there he
came to know that Prem Shankar Jha was accompanied by
petitioners and his wife, but then it is submitted that the FIR
does not even remotely disclose that who informed the
informant about the presence of the petitioners at the place of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87421 of 2025(4) dt.24-04-2026
3/5
occurrence. It is next submitted that son of the informant had
married the daughter of Prem Shankar Jha and the marriage was
being opposed by Prem Shankar Jha as such he had instituted a
criminal case, but then his daughter did not support the case
instituted by her father and being a major came to the house of
the informant, as such tension was brewing in between the
family on account of marriage in between son of the informant
and daughter of Prem Shankar Jha, as such the entire family
members of Prem Shankar Jha came to be implicated in the
instant case. It is also submitted that the informant does not
allege that petitioners fired causing death of his son. It is next
submitted that petitioners are students and are pursuing law and
if they are sent to judicial custody in the nature of allegations as
alleged, their entire career would get jeopardized and chances
are bright that they may come in contact with hardened
criminals. It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory
bail is granted to the petitioners, petitioners will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their
innocence that they were not present at the place of occurrence
when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is also
submitted that bail application of Prem Shankar Jha already
stands rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87421 of 2025(4) dt.24-04-2026
4/5
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners, but then are not in a position
to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that the FIR does not even remotely
disclose that as to who disclosed to the informant about the
presence of the petitioners at the time of occurrence when the
occurrence took place nor the informant alleges that he received
information that his son was shot by the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Benta P.S. Case No.133/2025, corresponding to
G.R. No.3387/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87421 of 2025(4) dt.24-04-2026
5/5
despite giving assurance to this court are not co-operating in the
investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned Trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…