Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22859 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-347 Year-2025 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Ranjan S/O Tuntun Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rakesh Singh R/O Village - Raghunathpur,P.S- Tajpur(O.P Halai), DistSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate : Mr.Shivam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Binod Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 24.12.2025 in connection with Jandaha (Mahisaur) P.S. Case No. 347 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 16.08.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),127(2),103,61(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Specific allegation against co-accused person, namely, Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary @ Golu Kumar is that he shot the son of the informant in the head and Manjit Kumar shot him in the chest. Further allegation against the petitioner and coaccused person, namely, Sonu Kumar is that they also fired but missed their target and the son of the informant fell down and
2/4 died on the spot.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR but from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is specific allegation of firing attributed against co-accused persons, namely, Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary @ Golu Kumar and Manjit Kumar. Thereafter the petitioner and other co-accused person have also fired upon the victim but the same is not hit on the person of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and petitioner has been made accused in the present case due to some ulterior motive but from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is specific allegation of firing attributed against co-accused persons, namely, Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary @ Golu Kumar and Manjit Kumar. Further submits that the similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Ramanand Chaudhary @ Chunni Chaudhary has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
3/4 since 24.12.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has clean antecedent, other co-accused persons have fired upon the victim and similarly situated co-accused person has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Jandaha (Mahisaur) P.S. Case No. 347 of 2025, with the following conditions:- (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall
4/4 verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T