Md. Gaffar @ Md. Gafar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11252 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJAULI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Md. Gaffar @ Md. Gafar S/o Md. Hasim Resident of Village - Khajauli, P.SKhajauli, District - Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md Soban Asghar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khajauli P.S. Case No. 129 of 2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 02.07.2025 at about 09:00 P.M., while informant was returning home from Hatiya Chowk, in the meantime, the accused persons including this petitioner demanded Rs.1000/- from the petitioner to consume alcohol. When informant refused, all the accused persons including the petitioner assaulted him with butt of pistol causing head injury. The accused persons also fired with country made pistol.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11252 of 2026(3) dt.23-04-2026 2/2 is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to party politics. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Further submission is that the injury report does not corroborate the injury. Petitioner has got four criminal antecedents in which he is on bail. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by contending that petitioner is named accused and there is specific allegation against the petitioner for causing injury to the informant which is corroborated by the injury report. Petitioner has four criminal antecedents. Hence, he does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the accusation and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) utkarsh/- U T