Patna High Court
Mobassir Alam @ Bhim SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner’s alleged involvement, supported by a co‑accused’s statement, and his prior serious criminal antecedents warranted surrender and regular bail proceedings.
Summary
The petitioner, Mobassir Alam, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 111(2)(b) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case relied on the self‑inculpatory statement of a co‑accused, Alakh Niranjan, who alleged that he sold four cartridges to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, no arms were recovered from his possession, and his name appeared only because of the co‑accused’s statement. The State opposed bail, highlighting two prior criminal antecedents, including a murder charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s criminal history, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, dismissed the application, and ordered the petitioner to surrender within two weeks and apply for regular bail, warning the police to arrest him if he failed to comply.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code given the self‑inculpatory statement against him and his prior criminal antecedents.
- Whether the presence of prior convictions, including a murder charge, defeats the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 111(2)(b)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- criminal antecedents
- self‑inculpatory statement
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37236 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2026 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Mobassir Alam @ Bhim Singh Son of Md. Mansur Alam @ Mansur Alam
Resident of Village- Shekha, Bigha, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kunwar Narayan Jamuar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 15-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Belaganj P.S. Case No. 76 of 2026 registered
for the offence under Sections 111(2)(b) of the BNS and under
Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, one Alakh Niranjan
was arrested and he, in his self-inculpatory statement, has said
that he had sold four cartridges for Rs. 1600/- to the petitioner
and there is huge recovery of arms and cartridges from Alakh
Niranjan.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and nothing has been recovered from
his possession. He next submits that the name of the petitioner
has surfaced in this case only on the basis of the self-inculpatory
statement of Alakh Niranjan.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37236 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
2/2
prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has
two criminal antecedents also which also includes case under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Considering the facts of the case and the
antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
8. The petitioner is directed to surrender within two
weeks from today and pray for regular bail failing which the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Gayaji will take all steps for
arrest of the petitioner.
9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Gayaji through FAX for its
compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.