Ashish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13028 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== Ashish Kumar Son of Vijal Singh (As per FIR aged about 25 years), Resident of Village- Medninagar, P.S.- Chautham, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP For the Informant : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Ms Pooja Prasad, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with chautham P.S. Case No. 90 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in custody since 15.04.2025 and the informant alleges that she along with her husband on 09.04.2025 at 7.30 P.M. were returning to their house on motorcycle, when three accused persons came from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13028 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026 2/3 behind on a motorcycle and dashed their motorcycle, hence they fell and Ashish (petitioner), Sonu and Ritesh started firing and petitioner shot her husband causing injury on head, leading to his death.
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 from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant initially alleges that all the three accused fired but then subsequently alleged that it was petitioner who fired leading to death of her husband.
5. Learned APP and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that wife is the informant and no wife would falsely implicate someone who was not associated with the occurrence of killing of her husband. It is further submitted that petitioner is the main assailant.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13028 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026 3/3
7. Accordingly, the regular bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T