Patna High Court
Md. Akram @ Heera @ Akram @ Heera BhaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner’s alleged firing causing grievous injury warranted denial of the relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Akram, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case alleging he fired at an informant, causing grievous injury. He claimed the allegations stem from a long-standing enmity and that he was not present at the scene, citing a prior case he filed against the informant and a delay in filing the FIR. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the medical evidence of injury. The court examined the allegations, the seriousness of the charges under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act, and the medical proof of injury. Finding the petitioner's contentions unconvincing, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application, indicating that regular bail could be considered upon surrender.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations of firing causing grievous injury.
- Whether the alleged delay in FIR filing and prior enmity affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the seriousness of offences under the B.N.S. and Arms Act precludes anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- firearms
- grievous injury
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
- enforced settlement
- serious offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16073 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2024 Thana- BITHAN District- Samastipur
======================================================
Md. Akram @ Heera @ Akram @ Heera Bhai Son of Wagir R/o Village -
Manorwa Khaira, Ward no. 12, P.S. - Bithan, Dist. - Samastipur at present
Jhugi Jhopadi, Sector - 4, Noida, P.S. and Dist. - Gautam Budh Nagar(U.P.).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 24-06-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Bithan P.S. Case No. 105 of 2024, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),
117(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegedly, on the given date and time of the
occurrence, while the informant was going to his house, in the
meanwhile, one Pulsar motorcycle overtook him and started
abusing. It is further alleged that the informant identified the
petitioner, who has indiscriminately fired upon him, due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16073 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
which he sustained one firearm injury in his right hand. The
another bullet hit on his motorcycle.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
the present case is nothing but an offshoot of long standing
enmity. To support the aforesaid contention, it is further urged
that earlier the petitioner had filed Bithan P.S. Case No. 19 of
2022 against the informant and others, in which the petitioner
had received firearm injury. The petitioner is said to have been
living in Noida (U.P.), where he is doing private job for his
livelihood and on the alleged date of occurrence, he was not
even present. During the course of investigation, independent
witnesses have also stated that the informant was pressurizing
the petitioner for settlement of the earlier dispute, but since the
petitioner was not ready for the same, it is every likelihood that
he has been trapped in a false and concocted case. It is lastly
contended that the petitioner bears fair antecedent, apart from
the fact that there is delay in lodging of the FIR.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that on
account of the firing made by the petitioner, the informant has
sustained grievous injury and, as such, in no circumstances, the
petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16073 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the specific accusation of firing upon the petitioner, which led to
grievous injury and duly supported by the medical evidence, this
Court is not persuaded to accept the prayer for anticipatory bail
of the petitioner. Accordingly, the same stands rejected.
7. However, if the petitioner surrenders and pray for
regular bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered without
being prejudice by the order of this Court.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.