Patna High Court

Md. Ahtesham Alam @ SonuversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

Bail was denied at this stage of the proceedings.

Summary

Md. Ahtesham Alam petitioned for bail in a murder case (Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.) where the deceased, a rural medical practitioner, was allegedly killed by the petitioner. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had a professional rivalry with the deceased, recovered the weapon, and presented a confessional statement in which the petitioner admitted stabbing the victim, corroborated by post‑mortem findings and eyewitnesses. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the only incriminating material was the confession, claimed innocence, and highlighted the petitioner’s clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention since 22‑12‑2025. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the confession, and the recovered weapon. The court, after considering the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary material, refused bail, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder case despite a confessional statement and corroborative evidence.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
murder
confession
criminal procedure
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15402 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- TARIYANI CHAPRA PS District-
                                                         Sheohar
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Ahtesham Alam @ Sonu, S/o Md. Muzaffar Alam, R/o Village - Khortha,
                 Ward No. 12, P.S - Belsand, District - Sheohar


                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Arvind Verma, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
                 For the Informant       :       Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Abhishek Aryans, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   15-04-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Tariyani Chhapra P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025 registered for

                   the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the

                   B.N.S.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that

                   unknown miscreants have killed the husband of the informant

                   who was a rural medical practitioner.

                                 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

                   committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15402 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
                                            2/3




          case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

          during course of investigation, the name of this petitioner has

          surfaced in para 59 of the case diary, where spy has disclosed

          that there was rivalry between the petitioner and the deceased as

          both were in same profession and the deceased was emerging as

          good professional in that area. It has further been submitted that

          police has also extracted confessional statement of the

          petitioner. Save and except the confessional statement, there is

          nothing against him. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent

          and he is languishing in judicial custody since 22.12.2025.

                       5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned

          counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the

          application for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has

          submitted that on the disclosure of this petitioner, the weapon of

          assault was recovered. It has further been submitted that during

          investigation, certain witnesses have seen the petitioner fleeing

          from the place of occurrence. In confessional statement, this

          petitioner has stated that he has stabbed the deceased many

          times which is corroborated by the postmortem report.

                       6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

          considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to

          enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer

          for bail stands rejected.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15402 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                                    7. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail

                       after six months if the trial is not concluded.


                                                 (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…