Patna High Court
Mohammad Kalu @ Mohammad FirojversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the petitioner was identified through a co‑accused’s confession and CCTV evidence and had pending criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohammad Kalu (alias Mohammad Firoj), sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case (PS. Case No. 175 of 2025) alleging theft of temple articles under Sections 303(2) and 334 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that unknown persons looted brass items from several temples, and the petitioner’s name was linked to the crime through a co‑accused’s confessional statement and identification in CCTV footage. The petitioner argued he was not named in the FIR and maintained his innocence, though he has two pending criminal cases. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the confession‑based identification and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The court, finding the material sufficient to justify detention, declined to grant anticipatory bail, thereby rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner when his identification is based on a co‑accused’s confession and CCTV footage, and he has pending criminal cases.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2), 334
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- theft
- temple robbery
- confessional statement
- CCTV identification
- criminal antecedent
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26992 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2025 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Mohammad Kalu @ Mohammad Firoj S/o Mohammad Masu R/o Mahalla -
Mehadi Hasan Chowk, P.S. - Brahmpura, Distt. - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 175 of 2025 lodged on
10.07.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) &
334 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court
of J.M.F.C., Muzaffarpur.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
unknown persons with allegation that they entered in a temple
and looted several articles from the temple like, brass bell of
hanumanji temple, brass bell in front of mataji temple, brass
chatri inside the santoshi mata temple and also some articles
from the store room.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26992 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/2
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name
has figured in this case on the basis of confessional statement of
the co-accused. He further submits that the criminal antecedent
of the petitioner is not clean as there are two cases pending
against him.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner's name has
surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement of
the co-accused and the petitioner was also identified in the
CCTV footage.
6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner
stands rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…