Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4613/2026bail rejected

Ankur Kumar Sharma @ Ankur Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-22Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4613 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-684 Year-2024 Thana- PIRBAHOR District- Patna ====================================================== Ankur Kumar Sharma @ Ankur Kumar S/O Sri Brajesh Kumar Sharma R/VSultanpur, Ward No.- 2, P.S.- Mokama, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 684 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 127(2), 125, 109, 140(1), 117(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of three cases and a fight ensued in between two groups of students leading to injury to the victim.

4. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is a student and is in custody since 01.11.2025. It is further submitted that Rishiraj had approached this Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 15260 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 11.04.2025 passed by a learned coordinate

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4613 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/2 Bench, thereafter Harsh Raj @ Chotu also approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.28510 of 2025 and the same was allowed by an order dated 13.08.2025. It is further submitted that even allegation of assault is general and omnibus in nature.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State does not dispute the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner but then submits that petitioner has antecedent of three serious cases and if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7. The regular bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T