Irshad Ansari @ Irshad Alam @ Mithu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61508 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2024 Thana- Nagara District- Saran ====================================================== Irshad Ansari @ Irshad Alam @ Mithu S/o Late Shahab Hussain @ Sahed Ansari @ Saheb Ansari R/o Village- Kadipur Nabiganj, P.S.- Nagra, DistrictSaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brajesh Sahay, Adv.

Ms. Rupa Sinha, Adv.

Mr.Arif Daula Siddiqui, Adv.

Mr.Noumaan Ahmad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-09-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Nagra P.S. Case No. 76 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) of the BNS, 2023.

3. Allegedly, while the informant was going to Chhapra by his two wheeler Bullet bike, in the meantime, four persons riding on two motorcycles intercepted him and snatched the valuables at the gun point.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the FIR has been instituted against unknown miscreants, however during course of investigation one Rahul Kumar was apprehended and he confessed his complicity, besides disclosing the name of his associates including the name of the petitioner. Save and except the confessional statement, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, there is no material suggesting the complicity of the petitioner in the crime.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61508 of 2025(2) dt.10-09-2025 2/2 The name of the petitioner is said to have been taken only on account of his past criminal antecedent, as has been disclosed in para-3 of the bail application, is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that four criminal antecedent against the petitioner as disclosed in para-3 and some of them are identical to the present one, speaks loud about the involvement of the petitioner in such type of activities.

6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the multiple criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the jurisdictional court preferably within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer for bail shall be considered without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U T