Ajay Paswan @ Ajay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36892 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2025 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Ajay Paswan @ Ajay Kumar Son of Bhuneshwar Paswan Resident of VillageGajragadh, P.S.- Barachatti, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Kishor Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 1.

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

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Barachatti PS Case No. 308 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 76, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that on 6-9-2025 at 4 pm, the accused persons including the petitioner came variously armed and said to vacate the land, further Anshu assaulted Sipu Kumari by an iron rod on chest on account of which she became unconscious and petitioner assaulted pregnant daughter of the informant, namely, Sangeeta by danda on stomach and accused took away jewellery worth Rs. 2 lakh.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36892 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026 2/2 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant on account of dispute relating to land. It is also submitted that specific allegation of assaulting by rod on chest of Sipu Kumari is against Anshu and petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the daughter of the informant by lathi on stomach but then the injury has been opined to be simple in nature. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that informant specifically alleges that his daughter was pregnant and the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted a pregnant lady by lathi on stomach causing injury that in itself is a ground enough not to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and petitioner has antecedent of two cases even.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T