Patna High Court
Md. Matin @ Md. Matin AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner, finding that the allegations and risk of tampering justified continued custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Matin Alam, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, relating to the alleged murder of Md. Taufique, the son of the informant. The FIR alleges that Taufique fled with the petitioner's sister, was later recaptured, and his body was found at the verandah of Md. Nayeem, with the petitioner being implicated on suspicion rather than as an eye‑witness. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and that the informant’s statements were vague and did not name him. The State contended that the death of the informant’s son was undisputed, that the petitioner had a possible motive, and that releasing him could facilitate tampering with evidence. After hearing both sides, the Court held that the allegations, though based on suspicion, were sufficient to deny bail, emphasizing the risk of interference with the investigation.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate standard for granting bail in a murder case where the accused is implicated primarily on suspicion?
- Does the lack of eye‑witness testimony and the petitioner’s clean antecedents preclude denial of bail?
- Is there a likelihood that the petitioner may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- suspicion
- false implication
- custodial investigation
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58703 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- JALALGARH District- Purnia
======================================================
Md. Matin @ Md. Matin Alam S/o Md. Mokim Resident of village- Jhawari,
P.S- Jalalgarh, District - Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of
B.N.S., 2023.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 11.06.2025 and the informant alleges that daughter of Md.
Mokim and son of the informant, namely, Md. Taufique were in
love and they fled from the house on 02.05.2025 at 06:00 p.m.
Further, on 03.05.2025, the father of the girl along with uncle
and two other people came to the house of the informant and
asked him to bring back Tafique who had fled with their
daughter or else the consequences would be bad. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58703 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
2/5
alleged that two days later, the informant came to know that his
son and the girl were caught at Chandigarh by the girl’s family
members, i.e., Md. Azad, Md. Waris and Md. Sharukh and both
boy and the girl were brought from Chandigarh to Jhabari but
then no information was given to the police or to the informant.
The informant on coming to know that his son and the girl have
been brought back from Chandigarh, went to the house of the
accused persons when he came to know that his son Md.
Tafique has been murdered. Accordingly, the police was
informed and the dead body of the son of the informant was
found lying at Verandah of Md. Nayeem’s house. The informant
also came to know that his son was kept in captivity a day
before, thus, alleges that the accused persons including the
petitioner killed his son.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from
perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that the same hinges around suspicion as petitioner is
not an eye witness to the occurrence. It is also submitted that the
informant in the FIR specifically alleges that three named
persons had gone to Chandigarh for bringing back his son and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58703 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
3/5
the girl but then he does not name the petitioner who had gone
to Chandigarh for bringing back Tafique and the girl. It is also
submitted that dead body of the son of the informant was found
at the Verandah of Nayeem and Nayeem in no way is related to
the family of the girl. It is further submitted that petitioner being
brother of the girl with whom Tafique had fled, as such, has
been implicated in the instant case based on suspicion.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes
the bail application by submitting that what is not in dispute
rather stands admitted is that son of the informant died. It is also
submitted that family members of the girl had come to the house
of the informant asking him to bring back Md. Taufique and the
girl, failing which the consequences would be bad. It is next
submitted that it is also not in dispute that Tafique and the girl
were brought back to Jhabari where the dead body of Tafique
was found, i.e., at Verandah of Nayeem. It is further submitted
that Nayeem, as submitted, is not related with the family
members of the girl but then the dead body was found at his
Verandah but then what would be the motive of Nayeem to kill
the son of the informant when the girl was not related to him in
any manner but then it is submitted that petitioner, who is
brother of the girl with whom Tafique had fled, may have a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58703 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
4/5
motive of committing the occurrence being aggrieved by the
fact that son of the informant fled with his sister. It is also
submitted that specific allegation is alleged in the FIR that when
Tafique along with the girl were brought to Jhabari, the police
was not informed which amply demonstrates the intention of the
accused persons including the petitioner.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that even presuming what has
been alleged is true without admitting then informant is not an
eye witness to the occurrence and the petitioner is languishing in
judicial custody since 11.06.2025. It is also submitted that
informant subsequently before the learned Trial Court has given
an application that he has not named anyone in the FIR on
which the learned APP submits that this is all the reason that
why bail should not be granted to the petitioner as it appears that
they are trying to manage the case. It is further submitted that it
does not appear probable that police would have known the
name of the family members of the girl in such detail as to be
incorporated in the FIR only with an intent to falsely implicate
them. It is also submitted that when petitioner is in custody and
is trying to tamper with the evidence, one can well imagine what
petitioner can do after his release.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58703 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
5/5
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
hereby rejected in connection with Jalalgarh P.S. Case No.89 of
2025, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Purnea.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.