Patna High Court

Manjar Alam @ Md. ManjarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 10 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

Bail was denied because the petitioner was a named accused in a serious offence and a co‑accused had already been refused bail.

Summary

Manjar Alam petitioned for bail in a criminal case under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the B.N.S and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging he participated in an attack on an informant's father and discharged a firearm. The prosecution contended that the petitioner was a named accused in the FIR and that two bullets were recovered from the deceased's skull. The petitioner argued that the FIR contained a general allegation, the dispute was monetary, and objective evidence did not support the charge. The State opposed bail, noting the seriousness of the offence and that a co‑accused, Gufran Alam, had already been denied bail by a co‑ordinate bench. The court, considering the petitioner’s status as a named accused, the gravity of the alleged offence, and the prior denial of bail to a similarly situated co‑accused, refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to a named accused in a case involving alleged firing and murder under the Arms Act and B.N.S provisions.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
B.N.S. — s. 103, 3(5)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Arms Act
serious offence
trial expeditious

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71788 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2025 Thana- BELSAND District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Manjar Alam @ Md. Manjar S/o Late Md. Samsul Alam R/o Village -
                 Chainpur, P.S - Belsand, District - Sitamarhi

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mrs. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Harendra Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   10-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 103 and 3(5) of B.N.S and Section

                   27 of Arms Act.

                                3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused

                   persons, namely Gufran Alam and Manjar Alam (petitioner), on

                   account of an earlier dispute, attacked informant’s father and even

                   resorted to firing, whereafter they fled away.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R

                   discloses general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and

                   other and the dispute relates to transaction of money. He further

                   submits that six persons have been alleged to have fired. It has also

                   been submitted that the objective evidence of the place of occurrence

                   also are not supportive of the allegations and the petitioner is in
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71788 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       custody since 09.05.2025.

                                    5. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition on

                       the ground that the petitioner is named accused in the First

                       Information Report with an allegation also against him of firing,

                       coupled with the fact that two bullets were also recovered from the

                       skull of the deceased. Further, it has also been pointed out that the

                       bail application of similarly situated co-accused person, Gufran

                       Alam, has already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this court

                       vide order dated 20.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.59395 of 2025

                       with a direction to expedite the trial.

                                    6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

                       the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is the named

                       accused in the First Information Report and also one of the assailants

                       of the deceased and further considering that the bail application of

                       similarly situated co-accused person has already been rejected by a

                       co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant

                       bail to the petitioner.

                                    7. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite

                       the trial.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…