Md. Lalo v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37047 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2026 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Md. Lalo S/o Late Md. Mooem @ Md. Moem Resident of Village- Barki Baliya, P.S.- Baliya, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Saurav Anand For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nagendra Prasad- A.P.P.
Mr.Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju Mr.Bhaskar Sandilya ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Bakhtiyarpur P. S. Case No.80 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S.
3. The S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the case, in compliance of the order dated 16.06.2026, are present in the Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that his brother (Shashi Ranjan) along
2/4 with Sudhir were coming back home on 05.02.2026 at 8.30 P.M. by motorcycle, when Laxman got his brother's motorcycle dashed by a pick up vehicle under a conspiracy leading to death of Shashi and Sudhir. It is next alleged that Shashi along with Laxman dealt in sale and purchase of land and had also opened a marriage hall in which Shashi had invested half the amount but in the agreement only name of Laxman was incorporated and Laxman did not give account of his brother and had misappropriated an amount of Rs.40 Lacs for which a dispute had arisen about five days back.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, but then, does not dispute the fact that he was driving the pick up vehicle on the day of the occurrence when the accident occurred leading to death of Sudhir and Shashi.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that petitioner does not dispute that he was driving the vehicle on the day when the occurrence took place leading to death of Sudhir and Shashi but then the police during the course of investigation did not make any endeavours to arrest the petitioner. It is submitted that had the petitioner been
3/4 arrested, perhaps the conspiracy would have unfolded as the informant in the FIR alleges that Sudhir and Shashi were killed but the occurrence was given shape of an accident. It is further submitted that had the petitioner been arrested or his mobile investigated, then perhaps the truth would have come to the fore, but then police also in a mechanical manner is sitting idle and is trying to give shape of the occurrence as an accident without holding a proper investigation.
7. The learned A.P.P. based on instruction of the S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the case submits that it appears that the occurrence took place on account of an accident leading to death of Shashi and Sudhir, but then fairly submits that the case requires to be investigated further, since informant in the FIR alleges that his brother was killed under a conspiracy.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that two innocent lives were taken away in garb of rash and negligent act of the petitioner.
9. The S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the case, who are present in the Court, submit that the case requires to be investigated further.
10.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by
4/4 the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
11.
The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
12.
The personal appearance of the S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T