Patna High Court
Md. Tuna @ Sadre AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Tuna @ Sadre Alam, was charged under Sections 127(3), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for allegedly throwing an informant's son from a terrace with intent to kill. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, citing the co-accused's exoneration and the lack of any eye‑witness during investigation. The State opposed bail, relying on the informant's eye‑witness statement in the FIR and the presence of villagers at the scene. The Court examined the material on record, noting the informant’s direct accusation and the seriousness of the offences. Consequently, the Court refused to grant bail, rejecting the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the allegations and evidence presented.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 127(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- eye‑witness
- B.N.S.
- Sections 127, 109, 115, 352, 351, 3
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79599 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2025 Thana- Singhaul District- Begusarai
======================================================
Md. Tuna @ Sadre Alam S/o Late Almun@ Aliudin R/o Dumri Masjid Tola,
Ward No. 7, P.S- Singhoul, Dist- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tanweer Kamal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 19-02-2026 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 127(3), 109(1), 115(2),
352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along
with the co-accused is alleged to have thrown the informant’s
son from the terrace into the jungle situated behind the house,
with the intention to kill him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case along with co-accused Mr. Arse Alam and the said co-
accused Mr. Arse Alam, after investigation has been held to be
innocent and a final report was filed in his favour. As a matter
of fact, it is only after informant’s son was recovered in an
unconscious condition in the Jungle that the present story had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79599 of 2025(5) dt.19-02-2026
2/2
been concocted and the petitioner was made an accused along
with co-accused. It has further been submitted that as a matter
of fact, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence even during
the course of investigation and the petitioner is in custody since
08.07.2025 with no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has
been submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of
bail on the ground of allegations made in the First Information
Report and materials collected during the course of
investigation.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the fact that the informant
himself has given an eye-witness account in the First
Information Report of the petitioner of having thrown the
deceased down from the terrace whereafter several villagers
had also assembled, this Court is not inclined to grant the
privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for
bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with
Singhauli P.S. Case No.101 of 2025.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…