Patna High Court

Jahir Ansari @ JahirversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Jahir Ansari sought anticipatory bail after an FIR (Case No. 440 of 2025) alleged his involvement in a shooting that resulted in the death of an informant's cousin son. The FIR named seven accused under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging they fired guns. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting that the allegation was a result of prior enmity and that he has a clean record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the death caused. The High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing that if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, the trial court should promptly decide his surrender‑cum‑bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act in view of the alleged shooting and resultant death.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal procedure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Arms Act
shooting
death
FIR
Siwan

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22677 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2025 Thana- SISWAN District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Jahir Ansari @ Jahir S/O Kasim Ansari Resident of Village- Gayaspur, P.S.-
                 Siswan, Dist.- Siwan.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s

                                                       Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

                                                  ORAL ORDER

2   16-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Siswan P.S. Case No. 440 of 2025 lodged on 31.12.2025,

                   for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act,

                   pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-VII, Siwan.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   seven named accused persons including the present petitioner

                   alleging that all the accused persons came and armed with guns

                   and started firing. As a result, one bullet struck the informant’s
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22677 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                            2/3




          cousin son, who sustained injuries and subsequently died in the

          hospital during treatment.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

          submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the

          petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner is resident of

          adjacent village and due to earlier enmity, his name has figured

          in this case unnecessarily. Counsel further submits that the

          petitioner has clean antecedent.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail of the petitioner and submits that the present case has been

          lodged under section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023. Counsel submits

          that due to firing made by the accused persons, informant’s

          cousin son sustained injuries and subsequently died in the

          hospital during treatment.

                       6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances, this

          Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,

          the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

                       7. However, if petitioner surrenders before the

          concerned Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today

          then in that case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his

          surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22677 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       prejudice that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been

                       rejected by this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order on the

                       merit of this case.



                                                                      (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…