Patna High Court
Mahtab Alam @ Lal BabuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court refused bail to the petitioner, holding that the evidence on record, including eyewitness identification, suffices to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Mahtab Alam, was charged with murder, criminal conspiracy and use of arms under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting the father of an informant. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, argued lack of eyewitness identification, and cited CCTV footage showing he was elsewhere at the time, as well as confessional statements of other accused. The prosecution relied on the informant’s testimony, statements of Amanul Haque and a co‑accused, asserting that the petitioner fired the fatal shot. The court examined whether electronic evidence and re‑investigation could be considered at the bail stage and held that such evidence cannot substitute for the prosecution’s substantive case. Finding that the witnesses had positively identified the petitioner and that confessional statements of co‑accused are not admissible for bail, the court refused bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of murder and related offences in view of the evidence on record.
- Whether electronic evidence such as CCTV footage and re‑investigation findings can be considered at the bail stage.
- Whether confessional statements of co‑accused affect the grant of bail to the petitioner.
- Whether the lack of direct identification by the informant warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- electronic evidence
- confessional statement
- re‑investigation
- identification
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4808 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2024 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN District-
Gopalganj
======================================================
Mahtab Alam @ Lal Babu Son of Late Mohammad Jad R/o Village - Takiya
Yakub, P.S - Gopalganj, District - Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Shashwat Srivastava, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Meena Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Md. Danish Quamar, Advocate
Mr. Dkash Ambuj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 01-05-2026 This is the second regular bail application on behalf of
the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and Mr.
Shashwat Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Amit
Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mritunjay
Kumar, Advocate for the informant and Ms. Meena Singh,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024 registered for the offences
under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4808 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
2/8
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. The prosecution case is to the effect that while the
father of the informant was going to the railway station along
with one Munna on his motorcycle, it is alleged that two named
accused persons, namely Mahtab Alam @ Lal Babu (the
petitioner) and Fahim @ Saddam, came on a motorcycle from
behind and the petitioner fired at the father of the informant,
who sustained injuries and subsequently died. The accused
persons thereafter fled from the spot with other accused persons
who were waiting for them.
5. Mr. Y.V. Giri, the learned senior Advocate for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated
on account of personal rivalry and the informant cannot be said
to be an eyewitness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that
the inquest report was prepared in the presence of the informant;
however, the informant did not take the name of the petitioner
and other persons involved in the commission of such offence,
and only as an afterthought, the name of the petitioner was
given. It has been submitted by the learned Senior counsel that
admittedly the incident is of 9:20 in the night; however, no
means of identification has been disclosed by the informant. It
has further been submitted that the wife of the petitioner had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4808 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
3/8
approached this court by filing a writ application and thereafter,
further investigation was done and supplementary case diary
was prepared, and in paragraph 39 of the said diary, there is a
reference of a CCTV footage which shows that the petitioner
was not present at the place of occurrence, rather was present at
the house of Vinay Pratap Singh to attend some function.
6. It has further been submitted that one person,
namely Deepak Upadhyay, has confessed about his complicity
in the crime along with one Deepak Ram, and on his
confessional statement, the arms used in the crime has also been
recovered. It has been submitted that the charge sheet has been
submitted against both Deepak Upadhyay and Deepak Ram, and
the petitioner has no concern with them.
7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the deceased, himself, was a veteran criminal and
was named in ten criminal cases.
8. The learned Senior counsel has also pointed out
that this said Deepak Upadhyay and Deepak Kumar Ram have
been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. It
has also been submitted that the person sitting on the motorcycle
has also been granted bail, and the petitioner is in custody since
08.02.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4808 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
4/8
9. Mr. Amit Srivastava, the learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the petitioner
was involved in the murder of the father of the informant and
the clout between the murderer and the petitioner has come
during the course of investigation. It has been submitted that
during the course of investigation, the tower location of the son
of the informant was found somewhere else and not of the
petitioner. It has further been submitted that once the charge
sheet was submitted against the petitioner and his son and even
cognizance taken on 15.04.2025, the re-investigation thereafter
is in teeth of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others, reported in
(2013) 5 SCC 762. Referring to para 54, the learned Senior
counsel submits that the same goes on to show that any further
investigation was not in accordance with law and was only used
to help the petitioner by the police. It has further been submitted
that the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner that Deepak Ram had no connection with the
petitioner is also wrong, as Deepak Kumar Ram, in his
confessional statement, as contained in para 43 of the
supplementary case diary, has specifically stated that he was
asked by the petitioner and one Chote Mukhiya to carry out
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4808 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
5/8
such murder and for which Rs. 6 lakhs was also paid for killing
Aslam Mukhiya and therefore the complicity of the petitioner is
writ large.
10. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to the
judgment passed in the cases of Jaibunisha vs. Meharban &
Anr. (in 2022 INSC 55) and Ashok Dhankad vs. State of NCT
of Delhi and Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 974, and has stated
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that in cases of
heinous crimes, regular bail should not be granted without
analyzing the pros and cons of release. It has also been
submitted that the petitioner should not be released on the basis
of some unverified CCTV footage, which can only be proved
during the course of trial.
11. Learned APP supports the arguments of learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and has
submitted that there is no change in circumstances and therefore
the second application of bail may not be entertained.
11. Considering the arguments forwarded by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as
well as the informant and also the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, this Court has noted the fact that earlier the bail
application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court taking
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4808 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
6/8
into account the fact that the person who was going on the
motorcycle along with the deceased, namely Amanul Haque, in
his statement recorded before the police, has stated that Mahtab
(the petitioner) and Fahim Ali came on a motorcycle and it was
Mehtab who shot upon the father of the informant, since
deceased. This Court had also noted that Fahim Ali, in his
confessional statement, has also confessed that it was Mahtab
(the petitioner), who shot upon the father of the informant,
resulting in his death and he was accompanying him on the
motorcycle on the fateful day.
12. This Court has been persuaded by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, bringing
the fact with regard to the re-investigation which had taken
place pursuant to the order of this Court passed in a writ petition
preferred by the wife of the petitioner. From perusal of the said
order, as contained in Annexure P-6 of the bail application, only
a direction was given to the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Saran Range, Chapra, to act in accordance with law. A
subsequent finding by the police pursuant to such order with
respect to the examination of CCTV footage in and around the
place of occurrence is being asserted on behalf of the petitioner
to be looked into in order to release the petitioner on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4808 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
7/8
13. It is a settled law that electronic evidence,
especially without any supportive document, cannot form basis
at the time of consideration of a bail application and can only be
tested in a full-fledged trial. This is more important in view of
some categorical statements being made by the witnesses during
the course of investigation that it was the petitioner who had
shot upon the father of the informant and therefore, at this stage,
consideration of other electronic evidence cannot be gone into
in order to consider the bail application. It is a settled law that
the court cannot venture into a threadbare analysis of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution and merits of such
evidence cannot be adjudicated at the stage of bail. This court
has observed that the informant has categorically named the
petitioner to have fired upon his father and the said fact has been
supported by Amanul Haque and moreover, the grant of bail to
Deepak Kumar Ram and Deepak Upadhyay cannot come to the
rescue of the petitioner, especially for the fact that their
confessional statement could not have been taken into account
at the stage of bail and moreover, if their statements are
considered, then the association of those accused persons with
the petitioner also cannot be ruled out. It cannot also be ruled
out that the two accused persons, who have confessed to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4808 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
8/8
crime, may have been planted to save the main culprits.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am not
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
15. The application stands dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.