Patna High Court
Md. Minhaj Alam @ Md. Pintu AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Regular bail cannot be granted when the trial is in progress and prosecution witnesses have already been examined.
Summary
The appellant, Md. Minhaj Alam, was charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged involvement in a killing. He sought regular bail, arguing that a clerical error in the search‑seizure memo did not affect the case and that he has a clean antecedent, contending that the real accused was another person. The prosecution countered that the informant, father of the deceased, had named the appellant and that the trial had already commenced with two prosecution witnesses examined. The court noted that bail is unlikely when trial is underway and witnesses are being examined, and distinguished the earlier bail granted to co‑accused before trial began. Consequently, the court rejected the appellant’s prayer for regular bail.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting regular bail when the trial has already commenced and witnesses have been examined.
- Whether the clerical discrepancy in the FIR and search‑seizure memo affects the bail application.
- Whether the appellant’s clean antecedent and alleged misidentification justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 3(5)
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- regular bail
- trial commencement
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.436 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Md. Minhaj Alam @ Md. Pintu Alam S/O Md. Subhan Ali R/O Vill.- Chak
Daulatpur, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist.- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sumendar Paswan S/O Late Yogeshwar Paswan R/O Vill.- Chak Daulatpur,
P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist.- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Alok
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
Ms.Sushma Kumari
Mr.Bhim Sen
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated
07.01.2026 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge,
SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in connection with Special Case
No.269 of 2025, Serial No.99 of 2025 arising out of
Bakhtiyarpur P. S. Case No.69 of 2025, instituted for the
offences under Sections103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., Section
27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, whereby his prayer for grant of regular bail has been
rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.436 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
2/4
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that from perusal of the FIR, it would
manifest that the same is Bakhtiyarpur P. S. Case No.69 of 2025
dated 19.02.2025, but the search and seizure memo appended
with the FIR records the number of FIR as 16 of 2025 dated
19.02.2025, as such, it is submitted that the said mistake
occurred on account of inadvertence committed by the authority
preparing the search and seizure memo. It is also submitted that
the search and seizure memo is of the instant FIR.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the defects as
pointed out by the office for the present is ignored as it has been
submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant that trial has commenced and witnesses are being
examined and two prosecution witnesses till date have been
examined.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and is not named in the FIR and the allegation of
firing is against Sahil Alam. It is also submitted that appellant
came to be implicated in the instant case during the course of
investigation by the informant who took his name. It is also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.436 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
3/4
submitted that similarly situated co-accused Ibran Alam and
Irfan Alam had approached this Court seeking regular bail by
filing Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3093 of 2025 and the same was
allowed by an order dated 21.08.2025 passed by a learned
Coordinate Bench.
6. The learned Special P. P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant does not dispute
the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant but then submits that informant is father of the
deceased as such it does not appear probable that he would
implicate someone who was not associated with the killing of
his son. It is also submitted that trial has commenced and two
witnesses have been examined. It is also submitted that when
Ibran Alam and Irfan Alam were granted the privilege of regular
bail at that time the trial had not commenced.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submits that appellant surrendered on
15.10.2025.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the fact that trial has commenced
and witnesses are being examined as such the Court for the
present is not inclined to release the appellant on bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.436 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
4/4
9. The prayer of the appellant for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…