Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Badshah Alam @ Md. BadshahversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Badshah Alam, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR (Case No.184 of 2025) alleged his involvement in a robbery, assault and firing on an informant, invoking Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner claimed innocence, argued that the allegations were vague, and noted that no weapon was recovered, contending that most offences were bailable. The State opposed bail, maintaining that the allegations, though general, were sufficient to justify detention. The Court examined the nature of the offences, the seriousness of the alleged act of firing, and the lack of a clear factual basis to grant bail. Concluding that the circumstances did not merit anticipatory bail, the Court rejected the petitioner's bail application.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR and the nature of the offences alleged.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • criminal procedure
  • robbery
  • assault
  • arms possession
  • non-bailable offence
  • Bihar

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36073 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- BELDOUR District- Khagaria
                 ======================================================
                 Badshah Alam @ Md. Badshah Son of Md. Kasim @ Abul Kasim Resident of
                 Didhaun, ward No 04, P.S.- Beldaur. District- Khagaria.
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Mohammad Minnatullah, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-06-2026                   The Court proceeding is being conducted through

                   virtual mode.

                                2. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and

                   Learned APP for the State.

                                3. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Beldaur P.S. Case No.184 of 2025 lodged on 19.06.2025,

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),

                   303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 read

                   with section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                4. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   three named accused persons including the petitioner with

                   allegation that they in connivance with each other, forcefully

                   snatched Rs.10,000/- cash, one mobile and also abuses the

                   informant on the point of desi katta. The specific allegation

                   against the petitioner is that he has fired on the informant, but

                   anyhow he saved his life.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36073 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
                                                       2/2




                                  5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                     petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He

                     submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the

                     present case. He further submits that the entire allegation is

                     general and vague against the petitioner.

                                  6. Counsel submits that the criminal antecedent of the

                     petitioner is clean and ready to fulfill all the conditions

                     whatsoever shall be imposed upon him. He further submits that

                     all sections are bailable except section 303(2) of the BNS and

                     27 of the Arms Act. He further submits that arms has not been

                     recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

                                  7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                     bail and submits that there is general and omnibus allegation

                     against the petitioner.

                                  8. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is

                     not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore

                     the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.



                                                             (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.