Md. Umar @ Md. Umar Faruk v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34164 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2023 Thana- PRATAPGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Md. Umar @ Md. Umar Faruk S/o- Md. Samiudin Resident of village - Machhaha, Ward No. 06, Police Station - Pratapganj, Dist- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arun, Adv .
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Gulnar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 341, 447, 448, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The allegation in the FIR is that four named persons along with some unknown persons, who were concealing their identity had came variously armed to the house of the informant and the allegation upon Sonelal Yadav @ Sonu Yadav is that he resorted to indiscriminate firing and fled away and one cartridge was recovered in the courtyard which was handed over by the informant to the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be apparent from the FIR itself that four persons have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34164 of 2025(3) dt.14-07-2025 2/3 been specifically named but the specific allegation is against one Sonelal Yadav. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not named in the FIR, and a perusal of the bail rejection order would show that his name transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused. It has stated that the other accused persons, who were present at the place of occurrence, their identity had been concealed and as such, the informant was unable to identify them. In such view of the matter even if the present petitioner was put on TIP, the same would also not bring out any result. Thus it is submitted that barring the confessional statement of co-accused, there is no other material to connect the petitioner to the said occurrence. At best, the petitioner was also present at the place of occurrence but no overt act has been attributed against him.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail
6. Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, let the petitioner in the event of his arrest/ surrender within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand)with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in Pratapganj
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34164 of 2025(3) dt.14-07-2025 3/3 P.S.Case No. 186 of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in investigation/ trial.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) N.K/- U T