Md Rahul @ Hefad @ Md Ehfaz @ Md. Rafaj @ Rahul Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37080 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2024 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul

======================================================

Md Rahul @ Hefad @ Md Ehfaz @ Md. Rafaj @ Rahul S/o Md Samser Resident of Village- Chhatapur, Ward No 09, P.S.- Chhatapur, District- Supaul

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 25-06-2025 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶12

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Chhatapur Police Station Case No. 274 of 2024, dated 30.08.2024, disclosing offences under Sections 191(2)/190/127(2)/115(2)/132/292/352/351(2)/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶13

3. The prosecution case is that on 30.08.2024, the police lodged an First Information Report, stating therein, that on 29.08.2024 in the evening at about 05:00 PM, while the informant-Sub Inspector, along with other police personnel, was on patrolling duty and at about 11:30 PM they reached near Chhatapur market. In the meantime the

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37080 of 2025(2) dt.25-06-2025 2/4

¶15

informant saw that Md. Dildar aged about 20 years son of Md. Rustom, who was released on bail and after being released on bail by the Court, he reached at the place of occurrence in a procession along with 22 to 25 persons on ten motorcycles where they were bursting firecrackers and clapping and created an atmosphere of nuisance in the general public. The police party tried to prevent the procession saying that such a procession cannot be allowed in market at the cost of general public. When the police party tried to stop the procession, the co-accused Md. Dildar, along with his supporters, started abusing the police personnel and used filthy language with them. The informant dialed 112 and called police mobile van. When the police personnel of 112 along with informant’s police party tried to arrest the accused persons, the co-accused Md. Dildar, who was leading the procession, and other persons of the procession started fleeing away. The police somehow arrested co-accused Md. Dildar, but remaining persons resorted to firing and fled away. The police recovered used cartridges of K. F. 7.65 bore from the place of occurrence. The arrested co-accused Md. Dildar dislcosed the name of the petitioner and other persons,

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37080 of 2025(2) dt.25-06-2025 3/4

¶17

who succeeded in fleeing away.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure of his name by the arrested coaccused Md. Dildar with whom the petitioner is having inimical terms. He further submits that an First Information Report was lodged by the father of the arrested co-accused Md. Dildar, namely, Md. Rustom, bearing Chhatapur Police Station Case No. 346 of 2013 against the father of the petitioner and other family members under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied sections. Due to previous enmity the petitioner has been made accused by the co-accused Md. Dildar.

¶19

5. Regards being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner and other accused persons created unruly scene and nuisance in general public and when the police tried to prevent ruckus, the accused persons, along with the petitioner, resorted to firing and created hindrance in discharge of official duty of the police. An attack on police while on official duty undermines the safety and

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37080 of 2025(2) dt.25-06-2025 4/4

¶21

security of law enforcement agency. Incidents of mob violence against law enforcement agency have become order of the day now in the State which can be very dangerous, often escalating tensions and compromising public safety, accordingly , I am notinclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶22

6. This application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶23

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶24

ashwani/-

¶25

U T

Md Rahul @ Hefad @ Md Ehfaz @ Md. Rafaj @ Rahul v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

Md Rahul @ Hefad @ Md Ehfaz @ Md. Rafaj @ Rahul v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Krishan Mohan Jha Vs The Central Sanskrit University

Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Tavarez @ Md. Tavarez Ansari @ Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Prity Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Aman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar