Md. Jasim @ Jasim @ Jasim Akhtar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22014 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2025 Thana- KISHANGANJ District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Md. Jasim @ Jasim @ Jasim Akhtar Son of Jalaluddin R/o Village - Mahingaon, Gidhabasti Kasera, P.S. - Kishanganj in the district of Kishanganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2026

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

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 22.01.2026 and the informant alleges that he works as a Guard in APHC Hospital and on 19.05.2025 at 08:30 PM, he saw petitioner and Arman taking smack, on objection, Arman caught him and petitioner stabbed him by knife causing injury on neck, stomach and chest.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that even injuries suffered by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22014 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 2/2 the injured have been opined to be simple in nature. It is next submitted that parties have compromised.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the regular bail application of the petitioner and submits that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner of stabbing the informant causing injury on neck, stomach and chest. It is also submitted that the offences for which the instant FIR was instituted are not compoundable, but if the parties have compromised that amply demonstrates the influence of the petitioner. It is next submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence even.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T