Patna High Court
Habib Miya @ Habib AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to a cash bond and specific conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Habib Miya, was arrested in connection with a violent incident arising from a land dispute in which the victim, Isharoz Ansari, was shot and later died. The FIR alleged that the petitioner opened fire, violating Sections 103 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner pleaded innocence, claiming a clean antecedent and that the FIR was fabricated, and highlighted that co‑accused had already been granted bail. The prosecution opposed bail, noting a direct allegation of firing against the petitioner, though the informant was not an eye‑witness. The court considered the bail criteria, the petitioner’s custody since October 2025, and the conditions imposed on co‑accused, and ultimately ordered bail with a bond and several conditions. The bail order was conditioned on the petitioner’s cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the court in granting bail to an accused charged under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act?
- Does the lack of an eye‑witness and the petitioner’s claim of a fabricated FIR affect the bail decision?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- B.N.S.S.
- land dispute
- murder
- section 27
- section 103
- section 3(5)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25012 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2024 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Habib Miya @ Habib Ansari Son of Late Nathuni Miya Resident of Village
-Sathan Takiya Tola, Sataha Chakiya Tola PS- Pahadpur, Dist- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rithesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P
For the Informant : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Ankita, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 03-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
16.10.2025 in connection with Pahadpur P.S. Case No. 378 of
2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 3(5) of
B.N.S.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on
12.08.2024 the informant lodged an information in Pahadpur
Police stating that on 12.08.2024, at approximately 01:45 PM
the on his informants elder brother, Isharoz Ansari, was
returning home motorcycle and the informant was also returning
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25012 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026
2/5
from the same market behind him on a bicycle. As Isharoz
Ansari reached the Morling Road near Narkatia Eidgah, 7 FIR
named persons including the petitioner, upon noticing him
returning home, surrounded and forcibly stopped him on the
road from all directions. These persons assaulted Ishoroz Ansari
by forcibly stopping him and beating him with fists and slaps,
thereafter pulling him off his motorcycle. At that time, accused
Manoj Yadav exhorted the others, saying, "What are you waiting
for? Finish him off!" On hearing this, accused Habib Miya
(Petitioner) opened fire with a firearm, causing a gunshot wound
to the rib area profuse bleeding and causing of Isharoz Ansari
from behind, leading to him to collapse on the ground.
Thereafter accused Jalaluddin Ansari fired another shot from a
separate pistol with the intention to kill, which resulted in the
death of Isharoz Ansari. The informant, who was returning
home on his bicycle, reached the spot upon noticing a gathering
of people. He saw the accused persons fleeing the scene. The
informant began to shout for help and immediately informed his
family members by phone. Thereafter, the informant, along with
others, took his injured brother to Taj Hospital in Jagdishpur,
where the attending doctors declared him dead. It was further
submitted that the informant and the accused persons have an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25012 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026
3/5
ongoing land dispute. Hence, the present FIR was instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of
the FIR it appears that the informant is not an eye-witness to the
alleged occurrence and the petitioner has been made an accused
in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. He further
submits that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Manoj
Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 28.04.2026 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 26141 of 2026 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court and another co-accused person, namely, Jalaluddin Ansari
against whom there is an allegation that he along with the
petitioner has fired upon the victim has been granted bail vide
order dated 12.05.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22438 of 2026
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the
petitioner next submits that police after investigation has
submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since
16.10.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25012 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026
4/5
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that it appears from the FIR that there is direct and
specific allegation of firing attributed against the petitioner but
fairly submits that informant is not an eye-witness to the alleged
occurrence and even no one has seen the incident in question.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional
District Sessions Judge-XIV, East Champaran at Motihari in
connection with Pahadpur P.S. Case No. 378 of 2024, subject to
the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25012 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026
5/5
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.