Dismissed¶20

Afsar Khan @ Md. Afsar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 May 2026CR. MISC./29477/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No.29477 of 2026; decided 08-05-2026; Ashok Kumar Pandey, J; Afsar Khan @ Md. Afsar; Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 779 of 2025; murder/firing on Sayyad Anwar Alam; Sections 103(1), 61(2) B.N.S.; Section 27 Arms Act; eyewitness statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. of Intekhaab Alam; alleged confessional statement; land dispute; criminal antecedents; co-accused bail in Cr. Misc. Nos. 87752/2025, 20131/2026, 22567/2026; renewal of bail after six months; expedite trial; custody since 22.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail refused at this stage; petitioner permitted to renew the bail prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded; trial Court directed to expedite the trial. ¶20

Afsar Khan @ Md. Afsar Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on bail refused at this stage; petitioner permitted to renew the bail prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded; trial Court directed to expedite the trial.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 779 of 2025 for offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶12

Court's answer

Having heard the parties and considering the nature of allegation, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage; the prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded by then.

¶21

Key takeaways

The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) rejected the regular-bail application of Afsar Khan @ Md. Afsar, an accused in Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 779 of 2025 (District Patna), registered under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, arising from the fatal firing on Sayyad Anwar Alam allegedly by the petitioner together with four other persons. Considering the nature of allegation — including, per the opposing sides, the Section 180 B.N.S.S. statement of eyewitness Intekhaab Alam naming Md. Afsar Khan as having fired twice at the deceased, an alleged confessional statement attributing the killing to a land dispute, and two criminal antecedents — against the defence pleas of false implication, 'general and omnibus' allegations and bail already granted to similarly placed co-accused in Cr. Misc. Nos. 87752 of 2025, 20131 of 2026 and 22567 of 2026, the Court held the petitioner could not be enlarged on bail 'at this stage'. The petitioner, in custody since 22.05.2025, may renew his prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded; the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29477 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-779 Year-2025 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Afsar Khan @ Md. Afsar S/O Ali Hasan Khan @ Ali Hasan Raza @ Md. Hasan Raja Resident of Mohalla- Maulabagh Naharpar, Police StationPhulwari Sharif, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

2 08-05-2026

The State of Bihar ===============	====	... ... Opposite Party ===================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s	:	Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Md. Anwar, Advocate
For the State	:	Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant ===============	: ====	Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Jayant Kumar Roy, Advocate ===================================
CORAM: HONOU	RABL	E MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶11

counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

¶12

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 779 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶13

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the informant who is wife of the deceased was going along with her husband Sayyad Anwar Alam and nephew Intekhaab Alam on bike towards her farm from Haroon Nagar colony to Nohsha. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with other four

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29477 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026 2/3

¶15

persons started firing at the informant’s husband and he died due to bullet injuries. All the assailants fled away. The informant alleged that her husband has been killed at the behest of other named ten accused persons. All these persons are working in the gang of one land mafia Naushad Mallick.

¶16

It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that only Intekhaab Alam is the eye witnesses of this case. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R. it is also clear that the nature of allegation is general and omnibus. It has further been submitted that similarly situated coaccused persons have been granted by this Court vide Cr. Misc. Nos. 87752 of 2025, 20131 of 2026 and 22567 of 2026. Moreover, petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 22.05.2025.

¶17

Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and have submitted that in this case, Intekhaab Alam is the eye witnesses who has given his statement under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S. wherein he has categorically stated that he was going to see the fields, Shahrukh Khan and Md. Afsar Khan pointed gun at his uncle. When the uncle of Intekhaab objected,

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29477 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026 3/3

¶19

Md. Afsar Khan shot at him and it is further alleged that Md. Afsar again fired at the deceased. Intekhaab has seen other four persons in a four wheeler. So from the statement of the eye witness Intekhaab, it is clear that the deceased has received two fire-arm injuries. During course of investigation, Md. Afsar has also given his confessional statement and has stated that he has killed the deceased due to land dispute. It has further been submitted that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two cases. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that main thrust of allegation is against the petitioner as he is the main assailant

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶21

However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

¶22

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶23

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶24

lata/- U

Afsar Khan @ Md. Afsar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsar Khan @ Md. Afsar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikram Paswan @ Vikram Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Haradhan Saha Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Jha Vs The state of Bihar

Ashok Saw Vs The State of Bihar

Kaushal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Poddar Vs The State of Bihar