Md. Chand Vs The state of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 16-06-2026

¶13

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 02.04.2025 in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 61 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 01.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 334(1), 317(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of Arms Act.

¶15

Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order 11.08.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 48924 of 2025 with a direction that “However, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months.”

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36768 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026 2/3

¶18

pursuant to the liberty granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present bail application. He next submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the seizure list that a country made pistol, one live cartridge, one mobile phone and a motorcycle were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 02.04.2025 i.e. for more than one year.

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matter.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C., Samastipur in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 61 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-

¶21

i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36768 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026 3/3

¶23

properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶24

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶25

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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

Suruchi/-

¶28

U T

Md. Chand v. The state of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Chand 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

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Uttam Chaudhary @ Uttam Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Kumar Yadav @ Pappu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shibu Chauhan Vs The State of Bihar

Rajnish Kumar Sao @ Rajnish Kumar Sahu Vs The State Of Bihar