Patna High Court
Md. Pinku @ Md. Javed @ Mohammad PinkuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Pinku, was arrested in connection with a shooting alleged under Sections 103(1) & 61(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution claimed he was present at the scene and part of a group that fired indiscriminately, relying on the informant’s testimony and CCTV footage. The petitioner argued that his name does not appear in the FIR and that only confessional statements of co‑accused implicated him, while eye‑witness Intekhaab Alam testified that the petitioner was not at the scene. The State opposed bail on the basis of the CCTV evidence. After considering the arguments, the Court found the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention and ordered his release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to compliance with the A.C.J.M.-IV.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite allegations under Sections 103(1) & 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the CCTV footage and informant’s testimony constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged presence at the scene can be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- B.N.S.
- CCTV evidence
- confessional statement
- eyewitness testimony
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28835 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-779 Year-2025 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Md. Pinku @ Md. Javed @ Mohammad Pinku S/o Md. Salin @ Mohammad
Shamim R/o Mohalla - Madarsa Gali Nahar pe, Isa nagar Naya tola, Phulwari
sharif, P.S- Phulwari sharif, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Anwar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Jayant Kr. Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) &
61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
informant (wife of the deceased) was going along with her
husband Sayyad Anwar Alam and nephew Intekhaab Alam on bike
towards her farm from Haroon Nagar colony to Nohsha. It is
alleged that altogether five accused persons started firing
indiscriminately and in second part of the F.I.R., it is alleged that
there are other persons who are involved in the conspiracy.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28835 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
2/3
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has
falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the name of this petitioner is not there
in the F.I.R. His name has surfaced during course of investigation
in the confessional statement of Md. Afsar and Sahjada Salim. It
has further been submitted that save and except the confessional
statement of co-accused, there is nothing against him. It has
further been submitted that the informant and Intekhaab Alam are
the eye-witness of this case. Intekhaab Alam has given his
statement under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. in paragraph ‘87’ of the
case diary wherein he has stated that he was going to see the
fields. Shahrukh and Md. Afsar pointed gun at his uncle. When the
uncle of Intekhaab, i.e. deceased objected, Md. Afsar shot at him
and it is further alleged that Afsar again fired at the deceased.
Intekhaab has seen other persons in a four wheeler. So from the
statement of eye-witness Intekhaab, it is clear that the deceased
has received two firearm injuries. During course of investigation,
Md. Afsar has also given his confessional statement.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
from the version of eye witness, it is clear that the petitioner was
not present at the spot and the main assailant is Md. Afsar. It has
further been submitted that the F.I.R. named accused person Aftab
Mallic has already been granted bail by this Court vide Cr. Misc.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28835 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
3/3
No. 20131 of 2026. The case of this petitioner stands on better
footing. The petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is
languishing in judicial custody since 21.05.2025.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed
the bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the
petitioner was present at the place of occurrence which has come
in CCTV Footage.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with
Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 779 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned court of A.C.J.M.-IV, Patna.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.