Md. Guddu @ Md. Akram Ansari @ Guddu @ Md. Akam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30271 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2026 Thana- MOUZAHIDPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Md. Guddu @ Md. Akram Ansari @ Guddu @ Md. Akam S/o Md. Iliyas Ansari, R/o Mohalla- Momin Tola, P.S- Habibpur, Distt.- Bhaglapur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Md.Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 12 of 2026 dated 23.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the mobile phones of the petitioner were looted by three unknown miscreants and subsequently during investigation the name of the petitioner transpired for his complicity in the said occurrence.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner was not involved in the robbery and he has no concern with the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30271 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026 2/3 occurrence. The petitioner was not apprehended from the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered from his conscious possession. No test identification parade has been conducted till date. The true facts of the case are that the petitioner runs a mobile repair shop and in good faith, he purchased a mobile phone from co-accused Masum for an amount of rupees four thousand and he sold the said mobile phone to one Deepak, who in turn sold the same to one Raunak. The petitioner was not knowing that the mobile phone was a stolen property. The recovery shown regarding two mobile phones and one motorcycle from the petitioner are not stolen articles, rather these articles belong to the petitioner. 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 11.03.2026.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that no recovery of any stolen article has been shown from the petitioner and also considering petitioner's clean antecedent and his period of custody, the petitioner, above-named, is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30271 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026 3/3 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Bhagalpur / concerned Court, in connection with Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 12 of 2026, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. and other following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial Court.
(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. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) Shahnawaz/- U T