Patna High Court
Md. Tahsin @ Md. Tahmim @ Md. Tamim @ TouseemversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Tahsin, applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 126(2), 109 and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He claimed to have a clean antecedent and argued that the FIR implicates only another accused, Chhotu, for firing at the informant. The informant alleged that the petitioner had summoned him to Hariyali market, where the shooting occurred, and that the petitioner’s presence facilitated the crime. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed bail, contending that the petitioner’s role in inviting the informant made him complicit. The Court, after considering the submissions, found the petitioner’s involvement sufficient to deny the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- arms act
- false implication
- section 126 B.N.S.
- section 109 B.N.S.
- section 61(2) B.N.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22103 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2026 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria
======================================================
Md. Tahsin @ Md. Tahmim @ Md. Tamim @ Touseem S/O Md. Sajjad @
Sajaad @ Sajjad Resident of Village- Ajmatpur, P.S- Bairganchhi, Distt.-
Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mandal
Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Pathak
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP
Mr.Dheeraj Kumar
Mr.Priyadarshi
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 19-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP Sri Rabindra Kumar for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 109 and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that on 27.12.2025 at about 6:00 PM,
petitioner called him and asked to come near Hariyali market for
some important work. Accordingly, the informant along with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22103 of 2026(3) dt.19-06-2026
2/3
others went to the place of occurrence where from before
petitioner along with Md. Akib, Chhotu and Md. Istkhar were
present. It is next alleged that Md. Akib got the informant
identified thereafter accused Md. Istkhar took out a pistol from
his waist and tried to fire, but Chhotu took the said arms and
fired at the informant causing injury on his neck.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific
allegation of firing causing injury to the informant is against
Chhotu.
5. The learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel
appearing on behalf of informant opposes the anticipatory bail
application and submits that it was petitioner who had called the
informant to the place of occurrence and based on his call, the
informant reached the place of occurrence where petitioner was
present from before and thereafter Chhotu fired causing injury
on his neck. It is submitted that no doubt, petitioner is not
alleged to have fired but then his presence at the place of
occurrence coupled with the fact that he had called the
informant emboldened the accused persons to commit the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22103 of 2026(3) dt.19-06-2026
3/3
occurrence of firing leading to injury.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P., the Court is
not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.