Ankit Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40142 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2026 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Ankit Kumar Sharma Son of Chitranjan Sharma R/o- Chanpatiya, Ward No. 06, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Kumar Prabhakar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 16.02.2026 in connection with Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 47 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109(1), 111, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and under Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, written application of the informant namely Rajdev Prasad Yadav is that due to land dispute one month earlier Golu Pathak and others have assaulted Jaswant Yadav, Caretaker of land belongs to the informant. Hence he had lodged F.I.R. against them as Chanpatiya Case No.- 13/2026. About 16:00 on 12.02.2026, the informant was removing unwanted grass over boundary wall of his. At that
2/4 time the petitioner with other F.I.R accused and five unknown persons have reached over motor cycle and threatened the informant to compromise that case. On denying to do so, Golu Pathak has attacked over the head of the informant by knife On shouting, Shailendra Singh and Ghanshyam Yadav have attacked over both legs of the informant by bamboo and iron rod. Aryan Kumar has attacked by danda over wrist of the right hand and got it fractured. During this course, Vijay Yadav and some unknown person have attacked over frontal part of head of the informant. On shouting local people have rushed towards the place of occurrence. On seeing them Golu Pathak has fired by the gun and ran away with all others co-accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and it appears from the FIR that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the name of the petitioner has transpired during investigation on the basis that he was present at the place of occurrence along with co-accused persons. He further submits that it appears from the FIR that specific allegation of assault is attributed against co-accused persons, namely, Golu Pathak, Aryan Kumar, Shyam Yadav and Shailendra Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that police after
3/4 investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases other than the present case but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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 the learned Court of JM-I Class, West Champaran, Bettiah in connection with Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 47 of 2026, subject to 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his 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.
4/4 iii. And further condition that the court below shall 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) Gaurav Sinha/- U T