Patna High Court
Jawed Ahmad @ Tunna Mian @ Tuna MiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
Bail was granted because there was no legally admissible evidence directly linking the petitioner to the offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Jawed Ahmad, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Sections 302, 120(B)/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act) arising from the killing of an informant's son. He contended that he was not named in the FIR and that the only evidence against him was a confessional statement of a co‑accused, which he claimed was unreliable. The State opposed bail, relying on a CDR record of a mobile allegedly belonging to the petitioner, but admitted that the CDR did not conclusively link the phone to him. The Court observed that no admissible material directly implicated the petitioner and therefore granted bail subject to strict conditions, including cooperation with investigation and non‑interference with witnesses. The bail order also provided for cancellation of the bond if undisclosed criminal antecedents or false statements were discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a serious offence (murder and conspiracy) when the only material against the accused is a co‑accused's confessional statement.
- Whether the CDR evidence of a mobile phone is sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether prior criminal cases and the absence of a prior bail petition affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- CDR evidence
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 120B IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 27 Arms Act
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78307 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2022 Thana- THAWE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Jawed Ahmad @ Tunna Mian @ Tuna Miya, S/o- Md. Nazir Alam, R/v-
Piprahi, P.S.- Uchkagaon Dist- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Thawe
P.S. Case No.214 of 2022, dated.29.08.2022, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per allegation, the son of the Informant has been
killed by motorcyclist while coming to home along with his
cousin. As per the further case of the prosecution, firstly, the
motorcyclists were following the the motorcycle of the deceased
and they hit him from the back with intent to make the
motorcycle fall, but when it did not happen, the pillion rider,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78307 of 2025 (3) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
who was following the deceased shot at him by pistol. When he
was brought to the hospital, he was declared dead.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that the Petitioner is not named in the
FIR. In fact, the FIR has been lodged against one Parvej Alam,
against whom suspicion has been raised by the Informant
regarding his involvement in the alleged offence. He further
submits that during investigation, the only material collected
against the Petitioner is the so-called confessional statement of
the co-accused, Faisal before the police, wherein he has stated
that the Petitioner is also involved in the alleged offence. Except
the confessional statement, there is no other material in the
charge sheet submitted against the Petitioner and other co-
accused.
5. He further submits that the petitioner has been
languishing in jail since 19.07.2025.
6. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has earlier been made accused in 13
other cases.
7. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78307 of 2025 (3) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
either for anticipatory bail or regular one.
8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that the
alleged offence is serious in nature and charge sheet has been
submitted against him. He also submits that some CDR has been
brought on record, regarding the mobile allegedly belonging to
the Petitioner. However, he fairly admits that there is no specific
material on record to show that this mobile belongs to the
Petitioner and as per the tower location of the mobile, the holder
of the mobile number was never at the place of the occurrence.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
particularly, lack of any legally admissible material against the
Petitioner, this application is allowed, directing the petitioner,
above-named, to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
concerned Court below in connection with Thawe P.S. Case
No.214 of 2022 on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner will make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required.
(ii) The petitioner will undertake that
investigation/trial will not get hampered on account of his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78307 of 2025 (3) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
absence or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police
or the court whenever his presence is required.
(iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
(iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has criminal antecedents other than the
disclosed one, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of
the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the
petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his
knowledge of the same.
(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
U T
Checking your session…