Patna High Court

Md. ShahjadversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 26 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Shahjad, was charged under IPC sections 307, 120(B), 34 and Arms Act section 27 for allegedly firing at Prakash Kumar Keshari, causing injuries. He contended that his name does not appear in the FIR and that the only evidence against him is a CCTV identification and his own confessional statement, with no direct allegation of firing or victim identification. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the CCTV footage and prior denial of bail to a co‑accused. The court examined the record and found no specific allegation linking the petitioner to the discharge of fire, noting his clean antecedent and prolonged custody since June 2024. Consequently, the court ordered his release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged under sections 307, 120(B), 34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.
Whether the CCTV footage and the petitioner's confessional statement constitute sufficient material to justify continued detention.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 307, 34

Subjects

bail
attempt to murder
criminal conspiracy
common intention
Arms Act
CCTV evidence
confessional statement
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7963 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-479 Year-2024 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Shahjad S/o Late Mansur @ Mansur Alam @ Md. Mansur R/O Village-
                 Emli Tal, P.S- Danapur, Dist.- Patna.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Abhishek Rai, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Ravi Kant Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   26-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP

                   for the State and learned counsel for the Informant .

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307 &

                   120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the

                   Arms Act.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that six

                   named accused persons have fired at one Prakash Kumar

                   Keshari and during that fire, he has sustained firearm injuries on

                   the left hand and left abdomen respectively.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   name of this petitioner is not there in the FIR. It has further been

                   submitted that the name of this petitioner has surfaced during
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7963 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                            2/3




          investigation only through CCTV footage and the confessional

          statement of this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner

          has further submitted that save and except confessional

          statement, there is nothing against the petitioner and from

          CCTV footage it cannot be ascertained as to whom he had fired.

          It has further been submitted that the petitioner is having no

          criminal antecedent and he is in judicial custody since

          07.06.2024.

                       5. Learned counsel for the Informant has vehemently

          opposed the bail and has stated that the petitioner was identified

          in CCTV footage. It has further been submitted that learned Co-

          ordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the bail of one co-

          accused Irfan and has also stated that three witnesses have been

          examined in the trial.

                       6. From perusal of the entire record, it is clear that

          there is no specific allegation against this petitioner of firing and

          even the victim has not named him.

                       7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

          considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is

          inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

          petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with

          Danapur P.S. Case No. 479 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7963 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                                        3/3




                      Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                      each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-4, Danapur, District-

                      Patna.



                                             (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…