Aashish Kumar @ Aashish Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40794 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2026 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

Aashish Kumar @ Aashish Kumar Singh S/o Lalan Singh @ Lalan Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Amethiyadih, P.S.- Sono, Distt.- Jamui 2.

Navin Kr. Singh @ Navin Singh S/o Vidya Singh Resident of VillageKoniya, P.S.- Charkapathar, Distt.- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrwal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. Petitioners are in custody in connection with Sono PS case no. 80/2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 127(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 308(5), 198 and 3(5) of BNS.

3. As per the allegation in the FIR, while on patrolling duty, the petitioners being constables of the Excise Department alongwith his other co-officers, stopped the informant's Scorpio vehicle. They alleged that the informant had consumed alcohol and demanded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from them. When the informant and other travellers objected, then the informant was

2/4 assaulted and was forced to transfer Rs. 9,500/- in the account of Adarsh Prakash through UPI. After extorting money, they freed the informant and the others from captivity.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact, the date of alleged occurrence was 22.04.2026 on which an amount of Rs. 9,500/- was transferred through UPI into the account of Adarsh Prakash, but subsequently it was retransferred to the UPI Id of wife of the informant on 24.04.2026. Thereafter, with mala fide intention, the present case came to be lodged on the basis of written report of the informant on 25.04.2026. He further submits that the petitioners are government officials, the case is triable by learned Magistrate and the petitioners have suffered several hardships. He further submits that the petitioners reserve their right to present defense and no amount was transferred in the UPI account of the petitioners or either of the officials present there. He next submits that the petitioners are in custody since 26.04.

2026 and they have got clean antecedent, as per paragraph 3 of the bail petition. He next submits that co-accused, Suryamani Kumar has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 45455 of 2026.

3/4

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners be released on bail each, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court of C.J.M, Jamui in connection with Sono PS case no. 80/2026, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(ii) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(iii) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for

4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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.

(Girijish Kumar, J) dhaneshwar/- U T