Patna High Court
Md. Iftakhar @ IstakharversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Iftakhar, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging his involvement in a shooting incident under Sections 126(2), 109, 61(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The informant claimed that Iftakhar drew a firearm at a market on 27‑12‑2025, attempted to fire, and that another accused, Chotu, seized the gun and shot the informant in the neck. Iftakhar contended he was falsely implicated, had a clean record, and that the informant’s statement was delayed and possibly motivated by a prior land dispute. The informant’s counsel argued that Iftakhar’s presence enabled Chotu to commit the shooting and that the factual allegations against Iftakhar were not disputed. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the allegations sufficient to deny the relief. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the Arms Act
- Whether the delay in the informant’s statement and alleged motive of a land dispute affect the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 109, 126(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- firearms offence
- arms act
- narcotic substances act
- false implication
- land dispute motive
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17151 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2026 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria
======================================================
Md. Iftakhar @ Istakhar Son of Mr. Sabir @ Shabeer R/O Village- Surjapur,
P.S.- Bairgachhi, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mrs. Sushmita Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Adv.
Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ajay
Kumar Thakur, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Araria P.S. Case No.02 of 2026, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 109, 61(2) of the B.N.S.,
2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 27.12.2025 at 6 P.M. Md. Tahmim called him at
Hariyali market, accordingly, the informant went to the market,
where from before, named accused persons including the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17151 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
petitioner were present, further petitioner took out arm and tried
to fire at the informant but the informant started fleeing,
thereafter Chotu took the arm and fired at the informant causing
injury on neck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that initially petitioner tried to fire at him but
Chotu took the arms and fired at the informant causing injury on
neck. It is further submitted that the said allegation that
petitioner tried firing at the informant is an exaggerated
allegation. It is also submitted that specific allegation of firing is
against Chotu. It is next submitted that the date of occurrence is
27.12.2025 and the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by
the police in the hospital at Darjeeling on 01.01.2026 i.e. after
more than five days of the occurrence. It is further submitted
that it does not appear probable that in between 27.12.2025 till
01.01.2026, the informant would have been treated in hospital in
Bihar but then no doctor would have informed the police about
the occurrence. It is thus submitted that it might be a possibility
that the occurrence took place in some other manner and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17151 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
petitioner came to be implicated in the instant case by the
informant on account of previous land dispute, as disclosed by
the brother of the informant, during the course of investigation,
recorded at Para-4 of the case diary.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands
admitted is that informant received gunshot in the neck and
specific allegation is against Chotu but then the informant also
alleges that it was this petitioner who was carrying gun from
whom Chotu took and committed the occurrence of firing. It is
also submitted that since informant was shot in the neck, a vital
part of the body, as such, he initially went to District Hospital,
Araria from where he was referred to Purnea and subsequently
he got himself treated at a Multi-specialty Private Hospital at
Darjeeling, where his fardbeyan was recorded. It is further
submitted that if the doctors at Araria and Purnea did not inform
the police that a person with firearm injury has come for
treatment, the informant cannot be faulted for the same. It is
fairly submitted that though petitioner is not alleged to have
fired causing firearm injury but then his presence at the place of
occurrence emboldened Chotu to commit the occurrence of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17151 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
firing after taking the gun from the petitioner. Learned APP
submits that investigation in the case is still continuing.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…