Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82810/2025rejected

Md. Shaukat @ Md. Saukat v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-23Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82810 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2025 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Md. Shaukat @ Md. Saukat Son of Late Tajmul @ Late Md. Tajmul @ Md. Tajmul Haque @ Md. Tajamul Haqe Resident of Village- Kathara, Ward No. 11, P.S.- Chhatapur, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Chhatapur P.S Case No. 200 of 2025 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that petitioner have fired bullet upon the mother of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner and the informant are co-villager and there is village dispute between the parties.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82810 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026 2/2

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order and case diary, it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner to fired bullet upon the mother of the informant. Total 12 criminal antecedents against the petitioner in which several offences are serious in nature.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T