Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10195 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2025 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Singh S/o Late Janardan Singh R/o Village - Chanp Tola (Chanp Tole) Teghra, P.S - Pachrukhi (Panchrukhi Sarai), District - Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ratneshwar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh- A.P.P.
Dr. Rahul Ray Mr.Satyendra Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-05-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Panchrukhi (Sarai) P. S. Case No.172 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 324(3), 303(2), 74, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and later on Section 103 B.N.S. was also added.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2025 and is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 13.04.2025 at 3.30 P.M. eleven named accused persons
2/4 including the petitioner entered his house and Vicky assaulted Buchun twice by knife causing injury on head, thereafter Deepu assaulted Buchun by Axe causing injury on head and he fell unconscious. Further, Vicky and Deepu tore the clothes of minor girl aged about 17 years and dashed her on the ground and acted inappropriately, thereafter Dipu assaulted Suganti Devi by knife causing injury on face and head. Further, Babu, a driver, with pierce assaulted Ramesh by rod causing injury on head, thereafter petitioner assaulted Manish by rod causing injury on head and he became unconscious. Further, Rajesh gave countrymade pistol to Abhishek and thereafter both entered the house and assaulted Ramesh and Om Prakash along with Amar took away ornaments and Rs.20,000/- along with Rupesh, thereafter injured were taken to hospital and condition of Buchun is critical. It is further submitted that Buchun subsequently died during the course of treatment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that thrust of the allegation of assault is against Vicky and Deepu. It is submitted that Vicky is alleged to have assaulted Buchun by knife twice causing injury on head and thereafter Deepu assaulted Buchun by Axe causing injury on
3/4 head and he fell unconscious. It is ext submitted that as far as petitioner is concerned, he is alleged to have assaulted Manish by rod causing injury on head, but then assault is not alleged to be repeated.
5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner is not alleged to have assaulted Buchun but then presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence emboldened Vicky and Deepu to commit the occurrence of assault in the manner which led to death of Buchun. It is also submitted that petitioner is alleged to have assaulted Manish by rod causing injury on head and he became unconscious. It is further submitted that head is a vital part of the body, though the blow is not alleged to be repeated.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Chhatu Kumar, Chhotu Kumar and Rajesh Singh had approached this Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.81343 of 2025, Cr. Misc. No.56551 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No.72658 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 03.12.2025, 19.08.2025 and 19.11.2025 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench, on which learned A.P.P. submits that specific allegation
4/4 of assault is alleged against them.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail.
8. The prayer of the petitioner for regular bail stands rejected.
9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T