Aayush Kumar @ Aayush Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39917 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- Vasudevpur District- Munger ====================================================== Aayush Kumar @ Aayush Raj S/o Late Shankar Singh @ Shankar Kumar Singh Resident of village - Mohanpur, P.S.- Chautham, Distt.- Khagaria, at present Mohalla - Basant Vihar Colony (Mogal Bazar), P.S.- Basudeopur, Distt.- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-07-2026

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 109, 308(3) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The Investigating Officer of the case, in compliance of the order dated 30.06.2026, is present in the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a young boy aged about 19 years and the informant alleges that he along with his father, uncle and brother had gone to the house of his uncle (Phupha) on 31.08.2025, where petitioner was also present from

2/4 before. Further, while talk was going on, when petitioner demanded extortion of Rs.10 lakhs and threatened that if extortion is not paid, the consequences would be bad. However, the informant along with his family members left the place but petitioner along with unknown accused chased their car and fired on account of which informant suffered firearm injury on leg and two bullets hit the car.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant has not disclosed his relationship with the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner and the informant are cousin and are having dispute relating to property. It is also submitted that though, it is alleged that petitioner along with others fired causing firearm injury to the informant on his leg but then a specific pleading has been made at para 12 of the anticipatory bail application that the nature of injury is simple caused by hard and blunt substance which amply demonstrates that informant in order to give seriousness to the case falsely alleged that petitioner fired causing firearm injury. It is further submitted that it was in this background that the Investigating

3/4 Officer of the case was called along with a copy of the injury report.

6. On query of the Court from the learned A.P.P. with the regard to the injury, learned A.P.P. after perusing the injury report submits that the Doctor has opined the injury to be simple caused by hard and blunt substance on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this amply demonstrates the false implication of the petitioner by the informant. It is further submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why the petitioner who is cousin of the informant would have demanded extortion of Rs.10 lakhs at the residence of his uncle where informant along with his family members had come.

7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Basudeopur P.S.

4/4 Case No. 103 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

9. The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T