Patna High Court
Shamimul Haque @ ShahzadaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and conditions, finding that the allegations did not warrant denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Shamimul Haque, sought bail in connection with a police case (No.86 of 2026) alleging offences under Sections 308(4), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bihar Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that he, along with others, visited an informant’s house armed with a pistol and threatened the informant’s wife to compel the informant to withdraw a separate case. The petitioner argued that the alleged intimidation was not corroborated by any independent witness, that no other incriminating material had been found, and that he had undertaken not to repeat such conduct. The State opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the threat and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents. The Court, noting the absence of any actual harm, the lack of corroboration, the petitioner’s undertaking, and the nature of the allegation, granted bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged offences of criminal intimidation and threats.
- Whether the lack of corroborative evidence and the petitioner’s undertaking justify bail despite prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code — s. 308(4), 3(5), 351(3), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal intimidation
- threat
- Section 482
- high court
- prior criminal antecedents
- investigative material
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40420 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2026 Thana- PIRBAHOR District- Patna
======================================================
Shamimul Haque @ Shahzada, Son of Late Abdul Hamid Resident of
Shanehelal Hotel, Sabzibagh, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radhe Shyam, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Pirbahore P.S. Case No.86 of 2026 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 308(4), 352, 351(3) and 3(5)
of the BNS.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the alleged
date and time of occurrence, the petitioner, along with the other
accused persons, came to the house of the informant armed with
a pistol and threatened the informant's wife to convey a message
to the informant that he should withdraw Pirbahore P.S. Case
No. 11 of 2026, failing which he would be killed.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
the previous animosity is evident from the fact that earlier the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40420 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
informant had instituted Pirbahore P.S. Case No.11 of 2026
against the petitioner and others and the animosity is a two-
edged sword which cuts both the sides. It is further contended
that although the petitioner had gone to the house of the
informant, the allegation of extending criminal intimidation is
not corroborated by any independent witness. Moreover, the
petitioner undertakes that he would not indulge in such activities
in future. Besides, during the course of investigation, no other
incriminating material has been collected against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that
there is a serious allegation against the petitioner of having
threatened the informant to withdraw the earlier case instituted
against him, besides the petitioner bears two criminal
antecedents.
6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the
learned Advocates for the respective parties and considering the
nature of allegation, coupled with the fact that no untoward
incident occurred pursuant to the alleged threat, besides the
undertaking of the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, be
released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40420 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
A.C.J.M.-IV, Patna in connection with Pirbahore P.S. Case
No.86 of 2026, subject to the condition as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioner.
(ii) If the petitioner is found involve in intimidating/
threatening the witnesses or the informant or would indulge in
such activities in future, the informant/State shall be at liberty to
file appropriate application for cancellation of his bail bond(s).
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.