Patna High Court
Md. IslamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The petitioner is released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to cancellation if he attempts to delay the trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Md Islam, was arrested in connection with a case alleging conspiracy to murder and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. The informant claimed that the petitioner’s brother was involved in a plot to kill a relative and that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy, but the petitioner contended that no material evidence linked him to the alleged crimes. The petitioner applied for bail, arguing that he had been falsely implicated and that the investigation had produced no incriminating material against him. The State opposed the bail but could not rebut the claim of lack of evidence. The Court granted bail on the condition of a Rs. 25,000 bond with two sureties and warned that the trial court could cancel the bail if the petitioner attempted to delay the framing of charges or the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations of involvement in a conspiracy to murder and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act
- Whether the absence of material evidence linking the petitioner to the offences warrants the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 115(2), 126, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- trial court
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67306 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- Mehsoul District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Md. Islam S/o Late Usman Miya R/o village - Dhankaul, P.S - Piprahi,
District - Sheohar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Sr. Adv
Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv
Mr. Devendra Kumar, Adv
Mr. Pusupendra Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP
Mr. Ashar Mustafa, Adv
Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned APP and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126, 115(2), 103(1), 61(2)
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 25(1-b)a,
26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant
alleges that his elder son, Basim Anwar Khan @ Puttu had
come to his house and was looking perturbed, accordingly the
informant asked his son why he is looking perturbed, on which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67306 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/4
he disclosed that Asgar Hussain, Md. Nasir Ahmad, Devendra
Shah, Dhananjay Kumar, Azizur Rahman and Vimlesh Kumar
Jha had met in the shop of Ejaj Shah for the purposes of getting
him killed and have also given money to the shooters and the
shooters can kill him any time. It is further alleged that his son
also disclosed that he had recorded the aforesaid fact in his
mobile, further his son also disclosed that Lal’s brother Md.
Islam is also involved in the conspiracy and the aforesaid
accused persons can get him killed any time, on which
informant asked his son that why he did not disclose the said
fact to the police, on which his son said that in the morning he
will accompany the informant to the police station for giving
information to the police about the conspiracy. It is next alleged
that thereafter his son left for his house and when he reached
near his house the informant heard sound of firing, accordingly
he came out and saw that his son was shot and his family
members Sahin Anwar Khan and Sahil Parwez disclosed that
they have seen the three shooters who committed the
occurrence, but they did not know their name but can identify
by their face.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67306 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
3/4
the informant. It is next submitted that during the course of
investigation, no material transpired even remotely connecting
the petitioner with the offence. It is also submitted that
Dhananjay Kumar had approached this Court seeking
anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 65688 of 2025 and the
same came to be allowed by an order dated 16-1-2026 after
considering the case in detail and on merit. It is next submitted
that against Dhananjay Kumar, some material had transpired but
then as far as the instant petitioner is concerned, no material
transpired connecting him with the offence. It is further
submitted that petitioner is in custody since 15-7-2025 and
charge-sheet has been submitted. It is also submitted that
petitioner will not abscond rather will co-operate in the trial to
prove his innocence.
5. Learned APP and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory bail
application, but then are not in a position to rebut the
submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that during the course of investigation no material
transpired connecting the petitioner with the offence.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67306 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
4/4
bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Mehsaul P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release
is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of
charge is trying to delay the trial in any manner, in both the
conditions, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…