Ashok Singh @ Alok Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80798 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-316 Year-2025 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Ashok Singh @ Alok Singh S/O Ramchandra Singh, Resident of Village - Bhojpurwa, P.S- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-12-2025 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No.316 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 115(2), 324(4), 352, 109 and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of causing spade blow over the head of the informant, due to which he sustained serious injuries.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that from the narratives of the FIR, it is evident that both the parties are agnates and they were bickering over a land dispute for a pretty long time. Only on account of the fact that the petitioner being Karta of the family, his name has been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80798 of 2025(2) dt.04-12-2025 2/2 case by making a specific allegation. The alleged occurrence took place on 29.08.2025, but the present FIR came to be instituted on 31.08.2025, without there being any plausible explanation. The injury which is sustained to the informant, though is said to be grievous in nature, but this fact cannot be ignored, there is no repetition of blow, besides the petitioner bears fair antecedent.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submitted that the assault attributed to the petitioner is led to a grievous injury, however, the injured was remained fortunate.

6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that on account of assault being made by the petitioner, the informant has sustained grievous injury over the vital part of his body, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer is rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered and disposed off without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Harish Kumar, J) rohit/- U T