Patna High Court

Md. Izhar @ Lalu @ Md. Lalu @ Md. Izhar MansuriversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANIL KUMAR SINHA

Holding

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed, affirming the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Izhar, was implicated in a case where an informant on a motorcycle was chased, the road was blocked, and armed assailants fired at the vehicle, stealing a gold chain worth Rs. 2.5 lakh and Rs. 1 lakh in cash. The FIR charges the petitioner under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to village politics, that no specific allegation was made against him, and that nothing was recovered from his possession. The Additional Sessions Judge had rejected his anticipatory bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The Patna High Court, after hearing counsel, upheld the lower court’s decision and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the offences alleged and his criminal antecedents
Whether the material on record is sufficient to justify denial of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 127(2), 303(2), 324(4), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal procedure
arms act
false implication
bail jurisprudence
Bihar

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2405 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2024 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Izhar @ Lalu @ Md. Lalu @ Md. Izhar Mansuri Son of Late Md. Gulam
                 @ Gulam Rasul Resident of village - Pachpania, P.S.- Madhepur, District -
                 Madhubani.
                                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                    ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Ms. Nitu Kumari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mrs. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-01-2026                  Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,

                   arises out of Madhepur PS case no. 99 of 2024, disclosing

                   offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 303(2),

                   324(4), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. The prosecution story, as per the First Information

                   Report, on 31.07.2024, while the informant was going on his

                   motorcycle and no sooner than he reached near Sarauni

                   Punarvash, the petitioner along with other accused persons

                   started chasing him. Subsequently, the petitioner informed the

                   second advance party on phone to block the road and the

                   informant stopped there. After sometime, 10-15 unknown

                   persons having arms reached there and fired a shot at the back
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2405 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                                        2/2




                      light and front mirror of vehicle. They snatched the golden chain

                      worth Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two lac fifty thousand) and a sum of

                      Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) from the informant.

                                   4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

                      petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of

                      false and concocted story due to dirty village politics. There is

                      no specific allegation against the petitioner and nothing has

                      been recovered from his conscious possession.

                                   5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

                      case and taking into consideration the materials available on

                      record including the impugned order of the learned District and

                      Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jhanjharpur, who taking note of

                      the nature of allegation and the criminal antecedents of the

                      petitioner has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the

                      petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to differ with

                      the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jhanjharpur.

                                   6. The prayer for anticipatory bail is, accordingly,

                      rejected.


                                               (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
khushbu/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…