Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Zakir Ansari @ Jahir Ansari @ JahirversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail.

Summary

Zakir Ansari was charged with firing indiscriminately at an informant's house, resulting in the death of the informant's nephew. The prosecution alleged that Ansari, along with others, used firearms and caused a fatal gunshot wound. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, had no criminal antecedent, was not a resident of the village, and was framed to settle personal scores. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and several provisions of the Arms Act. After hearing both sides, the Court found the petitioner's claim of false implication credible and, considering the lack of prior record, ordered that he be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 27, 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • Arms Act
  • B.N.S. 2023
  • false implication
  • murder
  • judicial custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42930 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2025 Thana- SISWAN District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Zakir Ansari @ Jahir Ansari @ Jahir Son of Late Kasim Ansari @ Late
                 Kuasim Ansari Resident of village - Gayaspur, Police Station - Siswan,
                 District - Siwan.
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-07-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.,

                   2023 and Sections 27, 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   petitioner, along with others being armed with weapons, arrived at

                   the door of the informant and started firing indiscriminately. It is

                   further alleged that one of the gunshots hit the nephew of the

                   informant, namely, Sukrit Yadav, in his stomach, who died during

                   the course of treatment.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

                   offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also

                   submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the allegation
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42930 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                                       2/2




                     is that the petitioner, along with others, has made indiscriminate

                     firing. This goes to show no one was aimed. He further submits

                     that only one gunshot injury was received by the nephew of the

                     informant. He further submits that the petitioner is not a resident

                     of the same village, he has been framed in this case only with a

                     view to settle scores. Moreover, a statement has been made in para

                     3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he

                     is languishing in judicial custody since 27.04.2026.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                     inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                     petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                     bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of

                     the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional

                     Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Siwan in connection with Siswan

                     P.S. Case No. 440 of 2025.


                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

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.