Patna High Court
Afsar Khan @ Md. AfsarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and rejected the petitioner’s bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Afsar Khan, was charged under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting and killing the husband of an informant in a land‑dispute related incident. The informant’s eye‑witness, Intekhaab Alam, testified that Afsar Khan pointed a gun and fired at the deceased, and Afsar Khan also gave a confessional statement admitting the killing. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR contains only vague, omnibus allegations, that he has no direct evidence against him, and that similarly situated co‑accused have been granted bail in earlier cases. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed bail, emphasizing the eye‑witness statement, the confessional, and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents. The court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail, stating that the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence warranted continued custody, but allowed a fresh bail application after six months and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial for murder and arms offences.
- Whether the eye‑witness statement and the petitioner’s confessional statement justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the bail decision.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR are sufficiently specific to warrant bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- arms act
- eye witness
- confessional statement
- land dispute
- criminal antecedent
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29477 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-779 Year-2025 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Afsar Khan @ Md. Afsar S/O Ali Hasan Khan @ Ali Hasan Raza @ Md.
Hasan Raja Resident of Mohalla- Maulabagh Naharpar, Police Station-
Phulwari Sharif, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Md. Anwar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Jayant Kumar Roy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-05-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 779 of 2025 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 who is 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 further alleged that the petitioner along with other four
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29477 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
persons started firing at the informant’s husband and he died due
to bullet injuries. All the assailants fled away. The informant
alleged that her husband has been killed at the behest of other
named ten accused persons. All these persons are working in the
gang of one land mafia Naushad Mallick.
4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence.
He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the
F.I.R. it is clear that only Intekhaab Alam is the eye witnesses of
this case. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the
F.I.R. it is also clear that the nature of allegation is general and
omnibus. It has further been submitted that similarly situated co-
accused persons have been granted by this Court vide Cr. Misc.
Nos. 87752 of 2025, 20131 of 2026 and 22567 of 2026. Moreover,
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 22.05.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of
regular bail and have submitted that in this case, Intekhaab Alam is
the eye witnesses who has given his statement under Section 180
of the B.N.S.S. wherein he has categorically stated that he was
going to see the fields, Shahrukh Khan and Md. Afsar Khan
pointed gun at his uncle. When the uncle of Intekhaab objected,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29477 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
Md. Afsar Khan shot at him and it is further alleged that Md. Afsar
again fired at the deceased. Intekhaab has seen other four persons
in a four wheeler. So from the statement of the eye witness
Intekhaab, it is clear that the deceased has received two fire-arm
injuries. During course of investigation, Md. Afsar has also given
his confessional statement and has stated that he has killed the
deceased due to land dispute. It has further been submitted that
petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two cases. Learned
counsel for the informant has submitted that main thrust of
allegation is against the petitioner as he is the main assailant
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer
for bail stands rejected.
7. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail
after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.