Patna High Court

Md. Mojahid @ Md. Mojahid AlamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Mojahid, sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for allegedly shooting the brother of an informant in a land dispute. The FIR listed offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, with additional charges added later. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, citing lack of eyewitness testimony and that only suspicion and call detail records linked him to the crime. The State countered that a co-accused’s confession and call records implicated the petitioner, and that the investigation remained open. Considering the incriminating material and the ongoing investigation, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the investigation is ongoing and there is incriminating material against the petitioner
Whether suspicion and co-accused confession suffice to deny anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109 read with 3(5), 126(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
land dispute
murder
firearms
investigation
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
Arms Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75854 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2025 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Mojahid @ Md. Mojahid Alam, Son of Md. Isarail @ Md. Isarail Khan,
                 Resident of Village- Hakapara Ward No. 14/05, P.S.- Saharsa, Dist- Saharsa
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   06-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by

                   learned counsel appearing for the informant.

                                2. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and

                   apprehending his arrest in connection with Saharsa Sadar

                   P.S. Case No.332 of 2025 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 126(2), 352, 109 read with 3(5)

                   of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.’),

                   Section 27 of the Arms Act but, later on, Sections 25(1-B)a,

                   26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 103(1) of the B.N.S. were

                   added in the FIR.

                                4. Allegation against petitioner is to shot dead the

                   brother of informant, where the occurrence alleged to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75854 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
                                            2/3




          arising out of land dispute.

                       5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for

          petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated with

          present crime in question. It is submitted that informant is not

          the eye-witness of the occurrence and merely on the basis of

          suspicion, petitioner was named in the FIR. It is further

          submitted that even call detail reports also raised only

          suspicion qua involvement of petitioner with present crime. It

          is submitted that the investigation of this case has already

          concluded on all material aspects qua apprehended accused

          persons and, therefore, sending the petitioner behind the

          custody, would not serve any judicial purpose. The petitioner

          claimed clean antecedent.

                       6. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel

          appearing for the informant while opposing the prayer of bail

          submitted that in terms of confession of apprehended co-

          accused, this petitioner specifically alleged to cause fatal

          firearm injury. It is submitted that the petitioner found talking

          during the time of occurrence with other co-accused persons

          as per call details report. It is submitted that in view of
         Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75854 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
                                                     3/3




                   aforesaid, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail and

                   moreover investigation of this case qua petitioner is still open.

                                7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by

                   taking note of incriminating materials, as submitted aforesaid

                   qua involvement of petitioner with present crime in question,

                   coupled with the fact that investigation of this case is still

                   open, accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner

                   stands rejected.


                                                     (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
    Sanjeet/-

U    T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…