Patna High Court
Md. Akbar Ali @ Akbar Ali @ Md. AkbarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail must be granted as there is no likelihood of tampering and the petitioner has a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Akbar Ali, was arrested in connection with a robbery, assault and illegal possession of arms alleged under Sections 309(6) and 317(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case rests mainly on the confessional statement of a co‑accused, Md. Arju Imam, as the petitioner’s name does not appear in the FIR. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he has no criminal antecedent, has been in custody since 27‑07‑2025, the charge‑sheet has already been filed and there is no risk of tampering with evidence. The State opposed bail, contending that the co‑accused’s confession implicates the petitioner. The court, after considering the clean antecedent, the completed charge‑sheet and the lack of any material suggesting tampering, granted bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions of cooperation and non‑tampering. The bail order was pronounced by Justice Alok Kumar Pandey.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused under Sections 309(6), 317(2) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused is sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether there is a likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses that warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 309(6), 317(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- confession of co‑accused
- clean antecedent
- evidence tampering
- trial cooperation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87566 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-262 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Md. Akbar Ali @ Akbar Ali @ Md. Akbar S/o- Md. Mofid R/v- Ratwara PS-
Kalyanpur Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 262 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 309(6) and 317(2) of the BNS and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, informant and his
brother-in-law were going to informant’s house on their
respective motorcycles. It is alleged that two miscreants on one
motorcycle intercepted the motorcycle of informant’s brother-
in-law and another two miscreants on other motorcycle overtook
the informant’s motorcycle and stopped him and on the point of
pistol, unknown miscreants compelled the informant to get
down from the motorcycle and started assaulting the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87566 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
2/4
and his brother-in-law. It is alleged that one of the miscreants
assaulted the informant’s brother-in-law upon his head by means
of pistol as a result of which he became injured. It is further
alleged that two miscreants pointed pistol upon the informant
and his brother-in-law and snatched the bag containing 14 gram
gold, 400 gram silver, bunch of keys and the locker key.
Thereafter, one mobile, Rs. 6,000/- (in cash) and informant’s
Adhar Card were also snatched by the miscreants and they fled
away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as
alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that petitioner is not named in
FIR. During the course of investigation, the name of the
petitioner has been transpired in this case upon the confessional
statement of the co-accused Md. Arju Imam. Except
confessional statement of said co-accused, there is nothing on
record to demonstrate the complicity of the present petitioner
with the alleged occurrence. He further submits that no TIP has
been conducted up till now. Petitioner is in custody since
27.07.2025 and he bears no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet
has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87566 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
3/4
tampering with the prosecution evidence.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that
the name of the petitioner has been transpired in this case upon
the confessional statement of co-accused Md. Arju Imam.
Hence, he does not deserve bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, period of custody, keeping in view clean antecedent of
petitioner, charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there
is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence,
argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into
consideration the material available on record, let the petitioners
above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M.,
Samastipur in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 262 of
2025, subject to following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or
mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn
the affidavit in bail application.
(ii) Petitioners will co-operate in trial and will
remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87566 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
4/4
dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.
(iii) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or
the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
alok/-
U T
Checking your session…