Md. Imran Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 12-05-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 227 of 2026, dated 21.02.2026, registered for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, the e-rickshaw of the informant was stolen and the name of the petitioner transpired as one of the thieves.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from person or possession of the petitioner. Petitioner was not apprehended from the spot. The FIR has been lodged after a delay of two days without any plausible

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32473 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 2/3

¶17

explanation. Initially the informant did not name this petitioner, but subsequently, when his second re-statement was recorded, he named this petitioner along with other co-accused persons and showed his suspicion that they might have stolen his e- rickshaw. Learned cousnel further submits that the so-called recovery on confessional statement of this petitioner is of some parts of e-rickshaw from some garage and such recovery is not believable. The petitioner is himself an e-rickshaw driver and a poor man. Learned counsel next submits that petitioner is having clean antecedent and chargesheet has been submitted. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioner is in custody since 01.03.2026.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of allegation, clean antecedent of the petitioner and his period of custody, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada / concerned Court, in connection with

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32473 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 3/3

¶21

Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 227 of 2026 , subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. and other following conditions:

¶22

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the

¶23

petitioner.

¶24

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial Court.

¶25

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.

¶26

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶27

Shahnawaz/-

Md. Imran v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Imran 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Tonikant Bharti Vs The State of Bihar

Pachu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Pappu @ Pappu Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Babu Shah Vs The State of Bihar

Mahesh Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar