Patna High Court
Md. AkeelversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and dismissed the petition for regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Md Akeel, was arrested in connection with a case (PS‑165/2025) alleging that he, along with two others, assaulted the son of an informant with a knife, causing multiple grievous injuries. He is charged under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1) and 109 of the Bihar Penal Code and has been in judicial custody since 8 July 2025. The petitioner pleaded innocence, claimed a personal enmity between the parties and asserted that he has no prior criminal record, seeking regular bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the injuries and the alleged involvement of the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant bail, stating that the petitioner may re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged grievous assault and multiple serious offences under the Bihar Penal Code.
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- grievous hurt
- assault with knife
- criminal procedure
- Bihar Penal Code
- sections 191 190 115 118 109
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88865 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2025 Thana- BAJPATTI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Md. Akeel S/o Md. Mahfooz R/o Village- Madhuban Gote, PS- Bajpatti,
District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 165 of 2025 instituted
for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2),
118(1) and 109 of BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution is that when the son of
the informant has gone to see the tajiya procession, the
petitioner along with two others has assaulted him with knife.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has further
submitted that there was enmity between the parties which is
clear from the FIR. A statement has been made in para-3 of this
petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88865 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since
08.07.2025.
5. In this case, the injury report was called for and
from perusal of the injury report, it is clear that son of the
informant, namely, Sakeel has received following injuries:-
(i) laceration in left fronto-parietal region 6 inch x 1
inch into scalp deep
(ii) in mido-parietal bone of scalp 1 ½ inch x 1 inch
deep.
(iii) laceration in right side of neck 2 inch x 1 inch
deep muscle.
(iv) laceration in right ear upper 1 inch 1 inch deep.
(v) laceration in right hand upper 1 inch x 1 inch deep.
(vi) laceration in left hand and second forefinger.
(vii) lacerated wound on right shoulder.
6. The nature of injuries is opined to be grievous.
From perusal of the injury report, it is clear that the petitioner
along with two others has brutally assaulted with knife to the
son of the informant.
7. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has
submitted that there is allegation that injured was brutally
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88865 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
assaulted by the petitioner and two others.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the facts and cirumstances of this case as stated
above, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail
at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
9. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
10. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…