Patna High Court

Md. ShohrabversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 7 May 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted as the petitioner’s antecedent convictions and the seriousness of the offences posed a risk of absconding and evidence tampering.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Shohrab, was charged under IPC sections 365, 364 and 120(B) for a 2019 case and has been in custody since 17‑10‑2025. He previously filed an anticipatory bail application (Cr. Misc. No. 62096 of 2025) which was rejected on 03‑09‑2025. The State highlighted that the petitioner now disclosed four prior cases, contradicting his earlier claim of a clean antecedent, and argued that he might abscond or tamper with evidence. The petitioner’s counsel sought regular bail, but the learned A.P.P. contended that the risk of absconding and the seriousness of the offences warranted denial of bail. The court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant bail, finding the petitioner’s antecedents and the nature of the offences sufficient grounds to refuse release. Consequently, the bail prayer was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite prior antecedents and the seriousness of offences under IPC sections 365, 364 and 120(B).
Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 364, 365

Subjects

bail
anticipatory bail
IPC 365
IPC 364
IPC 120B
criminal procedure
antecedent convictions
absconding risk
evidence tampering

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17967 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2019 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Shohrab Son of Late Haso R/O Vill.- Aurahidih, P.S.- Alauli, District-
                 Khagaria
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
                                                   Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-05-2026                   1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 365 of the Indian Penal

                   Code and subsequently Sections 364 and 120(B) of the Indian

                   Penal Code was added.

                                 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of four cases and is in custody since

                   17.10.2025.

                                 4. At this stage, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned

                   A.P.P. submits that petitioner had earlier moved this Court

                   seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 62096 of 2025

                   and the same came to be rejected vide order dated 03.09.2025

                   by this Court and from perusal of the order dated 03.09.2025, it
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17967 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
                                                       2/2




                     would manifest that the same records that petitioner is a person

                     with clean antecedent but in the instant regular bail application

                     petitioner has disclosed four antecedents which amply

                     demonstrates that petitioner when had approached this Court

                     seeking anticipatory bail had not approached the Court with

                     clean hands. It is further submitted that the case is of the year

                     2019 and the informant alleges that petitioner called her

                     husband and thereafter her husband left the house and became

                     traceless. It is next submitted that the husband of the informant

                     till date remains traceless. It is, thus, submitted that if the

                     privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the

                     petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

                                  5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                     A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the

                     petitioner on bail in connection with Alauli P.S. Case No. 18 of

                     2019 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

                     Khagaria/Successor Court.

                                  6. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…