Patna High Court
Md Shahid IbrahimiversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court denied regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md Shahid Ibrahimi, applied for regular bail in a murder case alleged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case is based on an informant’s allegation that the petitioner was part of a conspiracy to murder the informant’s husband, though the informant was not an eye‑witness. The petitioner argued that the FIR contains only suspicion and no direct evidence linking him to the crime. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s nine prior criminal convictions, some of a similar nature. The court, considering the seriousness of the charges and the petitioner’s extensive criminal record, rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the serious nature of the offences and his prior criminal antecedents
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- criminal antecedents
- Arms Act
- BNS
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35271 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2025 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Md Shahid Ibrahimi S/o Md Kalimuddin @ Kalimuddin Resident of Vill-
Ariyari PS- Ariyari Dist- Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Kumari Anupam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh, A.P.P.
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1) and 3 (5) of BNS
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant
namely, Neelam devi alleged that on 15.02.2025, her husband
went outside and later on she got an information that her
husband was murdered by gunshot. It is further alleged that due
to prior dispute, all the F.I.R. named accused persons including
this petitioner conspired and committed murder of her husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
from perusal of F.I.R. it is apparent that informant is not an eye
witness to the alleged occurrence. Only suspicion has been
raised against him. During course of investigation, informant
has only alleged that this petitioner along with other named
accused persons were seen fleeing from the place of occurrence
and none of the witnesses claimed to have seen this petitioner
committing the alleged occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35271 of 2025(6) dt.05-02-2026
2/2
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the informant
oppose the bail application. Learned counsel for the informant
submits that apart from the allegations made in the FIR and
materials collected during investigation, petitioner has got nine
criminal antecedents, out which some of them are of similar
nature.
6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation as
well as the fact that the petitioner has got nine criminal
antecedents, his prayer for bail is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Shashi
U T
Checking your session…