Patna High Court
Md. Maktub @ Md. Maktub AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted as the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s alleged presence at the crime scene warranted denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Maktub, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 309(6), 312, 109 of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution alleged that two unknown persons shot and looted a victim and that the petitioner’s presence was recorded at the crime scene and he was seen talking with the accused. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that he already has a criminal antecedent for which he is on bail and has been in custody since 25‑08‑2025, and he pledged cooperation with the trial. The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed bail on the basis of the petitioner’s alleged involvement and the seriousness of the offences. The Court, considering the gravity of the offences and the material evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, declined to grant bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving offences under Sections 309(6), 312, 109 of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged presence at the crime scene and interaction with the accused preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- serious offence
- Arms Act
- evidence
- court discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.182 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2025 Thana- JANKINAGAR District- Purnia
======================================================
Md. Maktub @ Md. Maktub Alam Son of Md. Tasruddin Resident of Village -
Akarthapa, P.S.- Bhargama, District - Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Jankinagar P.S. Case No. 135/2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 309(6), 312, 109 of B.N.S. and
Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, two unknown persons
shot and looted the victim-informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. Learned
counsel further submits that he has one criminal antecedent in
which he is on bail and he is in custody since 25.08.2025. The
petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the case/ trial.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.182 of 2026(4) dt.24-03-2026
2/2
for regular bail of the petitioner on the ground that in the
scientific investigation, petitioner’s presence has been found on
the spot and he has been found talking with the accused.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U
Checking your session…