Patna High Court
Mohammad Nazir AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that, notwithstanding the alleged suppression of criminal antecedents, the petitioners are entitled to bail after framing of charges, subject to strict conditions and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered a second bail application filed by Mohammad Nazir Alam and Sakil Ahmad in connection with a murder case (Uchkagaon P.S. Case No.12 of 2025) under Sections 103, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. The petitioners had previously been granted bail, which was later threatened with cancellation for allegedly suppressing their criminal antecedents, particularly alleged cases in Siwan district. The informant contended that the petitioners were regular offenders with undisclosed cases and posed a risk of influencing the trial. The court examined the veracity of the alleged antecedents, noting a police report that found no such cases in Siwan, and considered confessional statements of co‑accused and recovery of the weapon. Balancing these factors, the court held that the petitioners should not be denied bail, but imposed stringent conditions, including verification of antecedents by the trial court and regular reporting to the Superintendent of Police. The bail was ordered to be released after framing of charges, subject to the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted despite alleged suppression of the petitioners' criminal antecedents.
- Whether the alleged criminal antecedents in Siwan district are substantiated.
- Whether confessional statements of co‑accused and weapon recovery affect the bail decision.
- Whether the trial court should be directed to verify antecedents and cancel bail if concealment is found.
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedent
- suppression of facts
- murder
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- political rivalry
- verification of antecedent
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17762 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- UCHKAGAON District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Mohammad Nazir Alam S/o- Late Abdul Rahman @ Abdur Rahman
Resident of village- Piprahi PS- Uchkagaon District-Gopalganj
2. Sakil Ahmad @ Sakil @ Jhunna Alam S/o- Mohammad Nazir Alam
Resident of village- Piprahi PS- Uchkagaon District-Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Purushottam Kumar, Adv.
For the informant : Mr. Harsh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv.
Mr. Abhijeet, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 15-05-2026 Heard Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Purushottam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This is the second regular bail application filed on
behalf of the petitioners. This Court had earlier granted bail to
the petitioners by order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 27665/2025. One of the conditions imposed was that the
Court had to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17762 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
2/10
and had granted liberty to cancel the bail bonds if it was found
that the petitioners had concealed the criminal antecedent then
steps for cancellation would be taken. It has been stated that
when the trial court came to know about some further
antecedent which could not be disclosed earlier in the bail
application, the Court proposed for cancellation of bail bonds. It
has been submitted that thereafter, the petitioners approached
this Court with a modification application being Cr. Misc. No.
48123/2025, which was dismissed as not maintainable by this
Court vide order dated 08.08.2025. It is stated that thereafter, the
petitioners surrendered and are in custody since 13.02.2026 and
therefore, the second bail application being preferred by the
petitioners.
3. The petitioners seek bail in connection with
Uchkagaon P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025 dated 10.01.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 3(5)
of the B.N.S. and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act.
4. As per the prosecution story, the informant Rajiv
Kumar alleged that on 10.01.2025 while his elder brother
Arvind Kumar Yadav was going to school on his motorcycle
and he was right behind him along with one Prabhakar Kumar
Yadav on his motorcycle, he witnessed that the named accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17762 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
3/10
persons including the petitioners started indiscriminate firing
upon his brother Arvind Kumar Yadav, which hit him on his
chest and abdomen and he fell down. It is further alleged that on
hearing the sounds of firing, the villagers came there and the
said accused persons fled away on two motorcycles and
thereafter, the brother of the informant was taken to the Sadar
Hospital on Scorpio Car, where the Doctor declared him dead.
5. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that this Court had very
elaborately dealt with the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners and had granted bail considering all the facts and
therefore, he will not be repeating the entire arguments which
was forwarded earlier however, he very fairly submits that it
was due to inadvertence the entire criminal antecedent was not
disclosed and there was no intention on the part of the
petitioners to conceal the same. It has been submitted that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated on account of political
rivalry and during the course of investigation, one Abhishek
Kumar Yadav was apprehended by the police and he has
confessed that he along with other named persons had
committed the murder of Arvind Kumar Yadav, the brother of
the informant. Learned senior counsel submits that the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17762 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
4/10
statement is an inculpatory statement and the weapon used in
the said incident was also recovered in pursuance of such
confessional statement and therefore, the same is admissible in
law. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the allegation
against the petitioners was that he was contacted by the said
accused, Abhishek Kumar Yadav and they had conspired in
killing the brother of the informant. Mr. Giri, learned senior
counsel reiterates his earlier arguments that another co-accused,
namely, Ranjeet Goswami, in his confessional statement, had
stated the same facts as stated by the other accused, Abhishek
Kumar Yadav and also the fact as to how the murder was
committed and on his identification, the country made pistol and
cartridges were recovered.
6. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel again
referring to the various paragraphs of the case diary including
para nos. 164, 200, 237 and 271 has submitted that the same
was on to show that there was a dispute between the non F.I.R.
named accused, Abhishek Kumar Yadav with regard to a land
with the brother of the informant and hence, the said incident
had occurred. It has been submitted that the petitioners were
initially in custody since 10.01.2025 till 28.06.2025 and they are
again in custody since 13.02.2026 till date, despite the fact that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17762 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
5/10
they were earlier granted bail however the same was cancelled
on account of non disclosure of the entire criminal antecedents.
7. Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant had opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioners earlier and through the counter affidavit filed in the
present case, it has been submitted that the petitioners had
deliberately suppressed the criminal antecedents and such fact
was pointed out at the time of hearing of the earlier bail
application, hence the said ground was incorporated in earlier
order for verification of the criminal antecedents and the same
ultimately proved to be correct. The learned counsel submits
that the petitioners are regular offenders and their conduct
would go on to show that despite the fact that the informant
preferred the application seeking cancellation of the petitioners’
bail on account of suppression of criminal antecedents as had
been directed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioners instead of
surrendering, preferred a modification application before this
Court wherein they had admitted that the criminal antecedents
of both the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 was not
disclosed earlier. The learned counsel next submits that despite
there being a specific direction to the learned court below to
cancel the bail bonds upon finding that the petitioners had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17762 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
6/10
suppressed the criminal antecedents, surprisingly the learned
court below took no such steps to cancel the bail bonds even
though the informant, who had contested the bail of the
petitioners up to Supreme Court, had pressed the application
dated 03.07.2025 for cancelling the bail bonds of the petitioners.
It has further been submitted that Ranjeet Goswami who along
with Abhishek Kumar Yadav had confessed to their
participation in the murder of the deceased, were granted bail by
a Coordinate Benches of this Court and so has one of other co-
accused, namely, Avinash Kumar. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the informant that despite the informant’s
application dated 03.07.2025 bringing on record the antecedent
and for prayer of cancellation, the same was done after more
than seven months on 31.01.2026 which goes on to show the
influence of the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the informant though admits
that as per his information, there was other cases at Siwan
however, there is a report from the Superintendent of Police,
Siwan, which was called for by this Court, wherein it has been
reported that there is no criminal antecedents of the petitioners
in the District of Siwan. At this juncture, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17762 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
7/10
may be imposed heavy cost for submitting that the petitioners
carry criminal antecedents in the District of Siwan, which now
has been proved to be incorrect in view of the report submitted
by the Superintendent of Police, Siwan.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that since the petitioners had earlier been
granted bail so he won’t be submitting much on the merits of the
case. However, it has been submitted that the petitioners being
very powerful persons and carrying criminal antecedents of 9
and 10 criminal cases respectively, they should not be released
on bail because of the fact that they would infulence the trial
and shall intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the submissions, this Court finds that as far as
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners alleged to be in the
District of Siwan is concerned, the same was found to be not
correct and there is a report Superintendent of Police, Siwan,
there is no criminal antecedent found in the various police
station of the District of Siwan. As far as the case of the
petitioners is concerned, this Court had very elaborately dealt
with the evidence which has come during the course of
investigation in its order dated 23.06.2025, passed in Cr. Misc.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17762 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
8/10
No. 27665 of 2025 and thereafter, had granted bail to the
petitioners. Therefore, this Court considering the materials on
record and especially taking into account that a few co-accused
persons who had confessed their involvement in the present case
and on their confession, the recoveries were also made, is of the
opinion that the petitioners should not be denied the privilege of
bail.
11. However, considering the circumstances and the
criminal antecedents of the petitioners and also their past
conduct of suppression of antecedents clubbed with the fact that
despite their modification application being dismissed by order
dated 08.08.2025, they surrendered in the month of 30.01.2026,
this Court directs that the petitioners be released on bail and
their bail bonds be accepted “only after the framing of
charges”, on their furnishing it in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-
(Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Uchkagaon P.S.
Case No. 12 of 2025, and only on the conditions as under :-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17762 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
9/10
every date fixed, if so required by the learned Trial Court.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the
petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the
petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the trial
court shall take step for cancellation of bail bonds of the
petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of
the above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of
the same on in the name of verification.
(v) In view of the antecedents of the petitioners, the
petitioners are directed to appear before the Superintendent of
Police, Gopalganj within fifteen (15) days of his release with a
copy of this order and every two weeks thereafter for the next nine
months. The conduct of the petitioners will be kept under watch in
this period by the concerned Superintendent of Police and if it is
found wanting in any respect, a report shall be made to the Court
concerned by him to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of bail
of the petitioner for reasons of misuse of bail. After reporting to
the Superintendent of Police, a certificate will be filed by the
petitioner before the Court concerned.
12. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17762 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
10/10
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
13. The application stands allowed with the aforesaid
directions.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.