Patna High Court
Rashid Shamim AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied bail to Rashid Shamim Ansari but granted bail to Abdul Nabi, Babul Kumar and Abhijit Dubey.
Summary
The Patna High Court heard four bail applications arising from Banjariya Police Station Case No. 548 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), 118(2), 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that petitioner Rashid Shamim Ansari conspired to murder the deceased by transferring money to a hired killer and participating in the killing, while the other petitioners (Abdul Nabi, Babul Kumar, and Abhijit Dubey) were alleged to have acted as "liners" or to have refused to keep the murder weapon. The petitioners claimed innocence and highlighted the lack of prior criminal records, whereas the State argued that the material collected showed active participation in the conspiracy. The Court examined the gravity of the accusations, the specific role alleged for each petitioner, and the length of custody. It concluded that Rashid Shamim Ansari did not merit bail due to the serious nature of the alleged conspiracy and murder. Conversely, the Court found that the evidence against Abdul Nabi, Babul Kumar, and Abhijit Dubey was insufficient to deny bail and ordered their release on bail with appropriate sureties. The order emphasized that its observations were prima facie and not to be taken as a determination on the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to Rashid Shamim Ansari in view of the alleged murder conspiracy and financial transactions.
- Whether regular bail should be granted to Abdul Nabi, Babul Kumar and Abhijit Dubey despite allegations of involvement as "liners" or refusal to keep the murder weapon.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 118(2), 238, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- money transfer
- investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6774 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-548 Year-2025 Thana- BANJARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rashid Shamim Ansari Son of Shamim Ansari @ Md. Samim Alam Resident
of Village - Raghunathpur, Ward no. 21, P.S. - Raghunathpur, Dist. - East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1010 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-548 Year-2025 Thana- BANJARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Abdul Nabi @ Rehan S/o Late Atiullah Ansari Resident of - Balua Tal, Ward
No. 26, P.S - Town Motihari, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4769 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-548 Year-2025 Thana- BANJARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Babul Kumar @ Babul Dubey S/o Surendra Dubey R/o vill- Gopalpur, Raja
Bazar, Ps- Town Motihari, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9091 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-548 Year-2025 Thana- BANJARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Abhijit Dubey S/o Alok Dubey R/o Village- Madhubani Tola, P.S.-
Sangrampur, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6774 of 2026(4) dt.09-04-2026
2/5
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 6774 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1010 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Asif Kalim, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4769 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9091 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 09-04-2026 Ref:-Cr. Misc. No. 6774 of 2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of
petitioner seeking regular bail in connection with Banjariya P.S.
Case No. 548 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), 118(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner,
Rashid Shamim Ansari had called the deceased to meet him,
pursuant to which the dead body of the deceased was
subsequently recovered. In the FIR, suspicion was initially
raised against the petitioner. During investigation, it has come
that the petitioner had monetary transactions with the deceased
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6774 of 2026(4) dt.09-04-2026
3/5
and, owing to a financial dispute, he allegedly conspired to
eliminate the deceased by engaging hired criminals. It is further
alleged that one Rahul was engaged for the said purpose, to
whom a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was first transferred by the
petitioner, followed by another transfer of Rs. 15,000/-.
Thereafter, the petitioner, along with Rahul and others, is
alleged to have participated in the brutal murder of the
deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in
custody since 17.10.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is actively involved
in the conspiracy and commission of the offence and the case is
supported by material collected during investigation.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, the nature
and gravity of the accusation, the specific allegations against the
petitioner including transfer of money and his alleged role in
hiring criminals and the materials collected during investigation,
this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the
privilege of bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6774 of 2026(4) dt.09-04-2026
4/5
7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Ref:- Cr. Misc. No. 1010 of 2026, Cr. Misc. No. 4769
of 2026 and Cr. Misc. No. 9091 of 2026
8. These cases arise out of the same P.S. Case i.e.,
Banjariya P.S. Case No. 548 of 2025; therefore, they are being
heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
10. The petitioners seek regular bail in connection
with Banjariya P.S. Case No. 548 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), 118(2),
3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
11. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners,
namely Abhijit Dubey and Babul Kumar @ Babul Dubey, are
alleged to have worked as “liners” in the present case, pursuant
to which the murder of the deceased was subsequently
committed by the accused persons. It is further alleged that co-
accused Rahul Kumar had approached the petitioner, namely
Abdul Nabi @ Rehan, for keeping the pistol used in the
occurrence, which was refused by the said petitioner.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6774 of 2026(4) dt.09-04-2026
5/5
the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioners are in
custody since 17.10.2025.
13. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the
prayer for bail.
14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, the nature of accusation and the period of custody, the
applications are allowed.
15. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with
Banjariya P.S. Case No. 548 of 2025.
16. It is made clear that any observation made herein
is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail applications. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…