Md. Sarfe Alam @ Sarfe Alam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37154 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2025 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.
Md. Sarfe Alam @ Sarfe Alam Son of Late Badre Alam Resident of Village - Babhangama PS- Aurai, Dist- Muzaffarpur 2.
Ali Imam Son of late Ibnul Hasan Resident of Village - Babhangama PSAurai, Dist- Muzaffarpur 3.
Md. Irfan @ Belal Son of Md. Ali Imam Resident of Village - Babhangama PS- Aurai, Dist- Muzaffarpur 4.
Md. Moen Raja Hasmati @ Md. Moin Raza Hashamati @ Moen Raja Hasmati Son of Molvi Fazle Hawue Rizvi Resident of Village - Babhangama PS- Aurai, Dist- Muzaffarpur 5.
Md. Sibtain Raza @ Sibtain Raza Son of Md. Moen Raja Hasmati @ Moen Raja Hasmati Resident of Village - Babhangama PS- Aurai, DistMuzaffarpur 6.
Md. Sultan Raza @ Sultan Raza Son of Md. Moen Raja Hasmati @ Moen Raja Hasmati Resident of Village - Babhangama PS- Aurai, DistMuzaffarpur 7.
Md. Anas Son of Ejaj @ Md. Ezaz Resident of Village - Maksudpur, PSAurai, Dist- Muzaffarpur 8.
Md. Altmash @ Md. Salman @ Md. Altamasha @ Salman Anas Son of Md. Ezaz @ Ejaj Resident of Village - Maksudpur, PS- Aurai, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms.Dimpal Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Aurai P.S. Case No. 186 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 303(2),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37154 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026 2/2 308(2), 118(1), 324(4), 76, 352 and 351(2 & 3) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners along with others are accused to have opened fire at the place of occurrence.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioners have clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners and the fact that their role has been captured in the CCTV footage, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T