Gulshad Alam Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Kamaluddin, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 15-06-2026

¶14

Heard Mr. Md. Kamaluddin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, learned APP for the State.

¶15

Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since 14.03.2026, in connection with Paharkatta P.S. Case No. 63 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 14.03.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 317(5), 338, 336(3), 3(5) of the B.N.S.

¶16

Allegation against the petitioners is that they are possessing stolen motorcycle with forged number plates and other details of the vehicle with intent to cheat in collusion with accused persons.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have clean antecedents and they have been falsely

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36618 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026 2/3

¶19

implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the F.I.R. that the date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is 12.03.2026 but the present F.I.R. was instituted on 14.03.2026 after delay of two days without giving any explanation of delay. In fact, the petitioner has purchased the motorcycle in question from co-accused person, namely, Rafiq and Rafiq has not transferred the same in favour of the petitioners. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and the petitioners are in custody since 14.03.2026.

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 S.D.J.M., Paharkatta, Kishanganj in connection with Paharkatta P.S. Case No. 63 of 2026, subject to the following conditions :-

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36618 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026 3/3

¶23

(1) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶24

(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶25

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶26

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶27

Ibrar//-

Gulshad Alam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulshad Alam 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

Akchhay Manjhi @ Akchhay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nirdosh Kumar @ Nirdosh Yadav @ Nirdosh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Vivek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Uttam Chaudhary @ Uttam Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar