Patna High Court – Orders
Ashok Singh Bhokta vs The State Of Bihar on 28 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11467 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2022 Thana- IMAMGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Ashok Singh Bhokta Son of Late Jaglal Singh Bhokta Resident of Village-
Kothilava, P.S.- Lutua, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 28-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Imamganj P.S. Case No. 111 of 2022 instituted for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 121, 216, 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, Sections 25(1-a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and
Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 38, 39 of the U.A.P. Act.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.06.2022,
acting on information received from the S.S.B., Gaya, regarding
the presence of armed Maoist members at the house of Lalo
Devi in Village Dukhatpur, the police conducted a raid. During
the raid, the petitioner, Ashok Singh Bhokta, was allegedly
apprehended while attempting to open fire on the police. A
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11467 of 2026(5) dt.28-07-2026
2/5
loaded INSAS rifle with live cartridges was allegedly recovered
from his possession, and further search of the premises led to
the recovery of arms, ammunition, mobile phones, cash, and
other articles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is
neither a Maoist nor has any concern with the Maoist
organization. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that except the
mention of name of the petitioner as a member of Maoist gang
there is no direct evidence of commission of any illegal act
against the petitioner. No incriminating article has been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather
the recovery has been made from the house of Lalo Devi.
Petitioner has no concern with alleged recovery. Learned
counsel further submitted that there is one criminal case pending
against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2022.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned
APP further submitted that there is ample material against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11467 of 2026(5) dt.28-07-2026
3/5
petitioner in the case diary to establish his active participation in
the offence beyond the reasonable doubt. Learned counsel
further referring to Section 43-D (5) and 43-D(6) of the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 submitted that bail
must be rejected if there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accusation against person alleged of offences punishable
under Chapter IV and VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true.
Learned APP for the State further submitted that since police
after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections that
fall under Chapter IV and VI of the U.A.P. Act, which prima-
facie establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged
offences. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that in the light
of the present facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of
the petitioner for grant of bail may be rejected.
6. For better appreciation of the case, Section 43-D of
UAP Act, is quoted hereinbelow:-
” 43-D. Modified application of
certain provisions of the Code.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code or any other law, every
offence punishable under this Act shall be
deemed to be a cognizable offence within the
meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code,
and “cognizable case” as defined in that
clause shall be construed accordingly.
(2) ......... (4)
(5) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code, no person accused of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11467 of 2026(5) dt.28-07-2026
4/5an offence punishable under Chapters IV and
VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released
on bail or on his own bond unless the Public
Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of
being heard on the application for such
release: Provided that such accused person
shall not be released on bail or on his own
bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case
diary or the report made under section 173 of
the Code is of the opinion that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against such person is prima facie
true.
(6) The restrictions on granting of
bail specified in sub-section (5) is in addition
to the restrictions under the Code or any other
law for the time being in force on granting of
bail.
(7) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail
shall be granted to a person accused of an
offence punishable under this Act, if he is not
an Indian citizen and has entered the country
unauthorisedly or illegally except in very
exceptional circumstances and for reasons to
be recorded in writing.”
7. Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act modifies the
application of the general bail provisions in respect of offences
punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UAP Act. From bare
perusal of Section 43-D(5) it is evident that the said Section puts
a complete embargo on the powers of the Court to release an
accused on bail. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab and Anr.[(2024) 5 SCC 403] has observed
that the often quoted phrase “bail is the rule, jail is the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11467 of 2026(5) dt.28-07-2026
5/5
exception” is not applicable in the cases under UAP Act. It is
further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against
such person as regards commission of offence(s) under Chapter
IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act, is prima facie true, such
person shall not be released on bail. After perusing the material
available in the case dairy as well as the report submitted by the
police under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., it appears that the
accusation against the petitioner is found, prima facie, true.
8. Having considered the rival submission of the
parties and the material placed on record as also taking into
account the embargo put under Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
10. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
