Patna High Court
Anjar Alam @ AnjrversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the allegations were serious and the petitioners were specifically implicated in the knife injury.
Summary
The petitioners, Anjar Alam and Sohrab Alam, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 74, 352, 351(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The informant alleged that the petitioners participated in an assault on him and his brothers, including a knife injury to brother Sajid Alam’s private part. The petitioners contended that the FIR does not specifically charge them with the grievous injury, attributing it to co‑accused Manglu and Muzammil. The State’s counsel argued that the petitioners played a specific role in the knife assault, and the FIR supports this claim. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the specific role imputed to the petitioners, and that the investigation was ongoing, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the serious offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the FIR specifically implicates the petitioners in the grievous knife injury to Sajid Alam.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115, 126, 3, 303, 351, 352, 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- knife injury
- criminal procedure
- denial of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8184 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2025 Thana- PAHARKATTA District- Kishanganj
======================================================
1. Anjar Alam @ Anjr S/o Sohrab Alam R/o Village - Khajurbari, Ward no. 01,
P.S - Paharkatta, District - Kishanganj
2. Sohrab Alam S/o Bahruddin R/o Village - Khajurbari, Ward no. 01, P.S -
Paharkatta, District - Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Rachna Rani, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in
connection with Paharkatta P.S. Case No. 117 of 2025 dated
28.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections
115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 74, 352, 351(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the informant, on 28.09.2025 at about
09:00 A.M., he had gone to plough the land in respect of which
the dispute had been settled after panchayati. When he was
ploughing the field, all the accused persons, including the
petitioners, came there and started assaulting him, due to which
he sustained injuries on his cheek, chest and head. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8184 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
alleged that when the informant’s brother Sajid Alam arrived,
then accused persons namely Sohrab (petitioner No. 2), Anjar
(petitioner No. 1), Manglu and Mosana caught hold of his legs
and ruptured his hydrocele with knife. It is further alleged that
when the informant’s other brother Sahwaz and his sister,
Sahjadi Begum, came to save them, then the accused persons
also assaulted both of them and tore the clothes of Sahjadi
Begum.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
against the petitioners, there is no specific allegation and the
allegation as to inflicting knife injuries upon the informant’s
brother, Sajid Alam, is against co-accused Manglu and
Muzammil and there is case and counter case in between both
the parties and all the injured persons, except the injured Sajid
Alam, sustained simple injuries and the grievous injury to Sajid
Alam is specifically attributed to the co-accused persons, not to
the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
informant has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners
and submits that both the petitioners played a specific role in
assaulting Sajid Alam, on whose private part the injuries were
inflicted by using knife and in this regard, the FIR itself is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8184 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
sufficient and further, the injury on the private part of Sajid
Alam corroborates the said allegation.
6. Considering the seriousness of the allegations
appearing against the petitioners, mainly their specific role in
the commission of the alleged occurrence in inflicting knife
injuries upon Sajid Alam, as appears from the FIR, and also
taking note of the fact that the case is under investigation, in my
opinion, it is not a fit case to grant the relief of anticipatory bail
to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer stands rejected.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.