Patna High Court
Shamshu Jama @ Shamsul Zama @ S. ZamaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Shamshu Jama, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (Sakra P.S. Case No. 322 of 2025) involving alleged assault, robbery, and homicide arising from a land dispute. The FIR, filed on 20‑06‑2025, listed multiple offences under the Bihar Negotiable Statutes, 2023, and the prosecution alleged that the petitioner participated in the assault on the informant and his daughter, leading to the death of Md. Sayeed Akhtar. The petitioner contended he has a clean record, was falsely implicated, and highlighted inconsistencies in the FIR, including a six‑day delay and the victim’s death occurring after the alleged injury date. The State opposed the bail, arguing the petitioner’s involvement and the pending post‑mortem report. The court examined the facts, the seriousness of the offences, and the possibility of tampering with evidence, and concluded that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court refused the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged offences and the circumstances of the case
- Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated based on the FIR and the delay in filing
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged crimes and pending post‑mortem report preclude the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 109(1), 115, 115(2), 117, 117(1), 118, 118(1), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 329(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- false implication
- land dispute
- criminal law
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes
- post‑mortem report
- assault
- robbery
- homicide
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23792 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-322 Year-2025 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Shamshu Jama @ Shamsul Zama @ S. Zama S/o- Late Kamru Jama @ Md.
Kamrul Jama R/v- Gannipur Bajha Ps- Sakra District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr.Advocate
: Mr.Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-07-2026 Heard Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant
and Ms.Asha Devi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Sakra P.S. Case No. 322 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
20.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2),115,118,117,109,3(5) of the BNS, 2023 later on Section
103(1) of BNS was added but the police has found the case true
under Sections 329(2),191(2)(3), 126(2),115(2),118(1), 117(1),
109(1), 352,351(2) of BNS.
3. According to prosecution case, all the accused
persons including this petitioner over a land dispute brutally
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23792 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
2/3
assaulted the informant and his daughter and took away cash
and gold chain from his house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated
in the present case. It appears from the FIR that due to partition
dispute, the present occurrence has taken place. Although there
is specific allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted
to Md. Sayeed Akhtar. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the
date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 14.06.2025 but the
present FIR has been instituted on 20.06.2025 after delay of six
days afterthought only to falsely implicate the petitioner in the
present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
date of occurrence as alleged in FIR is 14.06.2025 and Md.
Sayeed Akhtar had died on 04.07.2025 and initially the injury
report of the injured person/deceased suggests that he has
received the injury on both shoulders.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.P.P. for the State, on other other hand, have vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner has participated in the present crime
in question and the deceased died after twenty days of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23792 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
3/3
occurrence from a bare perusal of the postmortem report of the
deceased it appears that the opinion regarding cause of death is
being kept reserved pending the report. Time elapsed since
death was within 02-03 days from the time of postmortem
examination.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this is not a fit case
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with
Sakra P.S. Case No. 322 of 2025 pending in the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-2nd Muzaffarpur.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.