Patna High Court
Md. Tausif @ TausifversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as infructuous, and regular bail was granted to petitioner no. 1 subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Tausif and Seraji Mallik, filed an anticipatory bail petition in connection with a FIR alleging offences under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1) of the Bihar Negotiable (B.N.S.) Act and section 27 of the Arms Act. While the petition was pending, petitioner no. 2 (Seraji Mallik) was arrested, rendering his anticipatory bail request moot, and the court dismissed it as infructuous. Petitioner no. 1 (Md. Tausif) feared arrest and sought regular bail, contending that the only basis for his implication was a co‑accused’s confessional statement, no material was recovered from him, and he had a clean antecedent. The State opposed bail, alleging his participation in firing at a public place. After reviewing the record, the court noted the lack of seized contraband and the petitioner’s clean record, and granted bail to petitioner no. 1 subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of antecedents under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail petition becomes infructuous when the petitioner is arrested before the order is passed
- Whether regular bail can be granted to a petitioner whose alleged involvement is based solely on a co‑accused’s confessional statement and with no material recovered
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Criminal Procedure Code (B.N.S.S.) — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Negotiable (B.N.S.) Act — s. 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- arms act
- section 482
- bail conditions
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39457 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2025 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Md. Tausif @ Tausif Son of Md. Ejaj Resident Of Village- Kasi Takia, Ps-
Laheri, District- Nalanda, Bihar Sharif
2. Seraji Mallik @ Serazi Mallick Son of Khurshid Anwar Resident Of Village-
Kasi Takia, Ps- Laheri, District- Nalanda, Bihar Sharif
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renuka Ratnakar, (App 125)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submit that during pendency of the
present anticipatory bail petition, the petitioner no. 2 has been
arrested, therefore his anticipatory bail petition has become
infructuous.
3. Considering the above, the anticipatory bail petition
of petitioner no. 2 is dismissed as infructuous.
4. The petitioner no. 1 apprehends his arrest in
connection with Bihar Sharif P.S Case No. 235 of 2025, for
allegedly having committed offences under Sections 191(2),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39457 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
191(3), 190 and 109(1) of B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
5. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to
the effect that, on 18.04.2025 while the informant was on
patrolling duty at around 20:15 hours, he received an
information that in ward no. 27 in between the house of late Dr.
Saraswati Devi and Annu Vision Shop, firing has been made by
criminals in the middle of the road. Upon receiving such
information and to verify the genuineness of the same, he
reached at the place of occurrence, where he came to know that
10-15 criminals caused firing and thereafter, fled away from the
place of occurrence.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
no such occurrence has taken place and the petitioner was not
present at the place of occurrence. The name of the petitioner
transpired in the present case on the basis of the confessional
statement made by co-accused Raghav Kumar, during course of
investigation. He further submits that nothing has been
recovered from the possession of the petitioner and one of the
co-accused namely Md. Afridi @ Fiddi has been granted the
privilege of anticipatory bail by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39457 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
Court, vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
70217 of 2025. He further submits that the petitioner no. 1 has
got a clean antecedent.
7. Per contra, the learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner no.1
and submits that the petitioner no.1 indulged in firing at a public
place, along with other co-accused.
8. Having heard the rival submissions and after going
through the records, it appears that the First Information Report
was lodged against the unknown and during course of
investigation the name of the petitioner no.1 transpired in the
present case on the basis of the confessional statement made by
one of the co-accused. Nothing has been recovered from the
possession of the petitioner no.1 and he has got a clean
antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
let the petitioner no.1, above named, in the event of arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda in connection with Bihar
Sharif P.S. Case No. 235 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, with further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39457 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
condition:
(1) The learned Court concerned shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it
is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation
of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Pallavi/Mridula
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.