Md. Izhar @ Lalu @ Md. Lalu @ Md. Izhar Mansuri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2405 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2024 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Md. Izhar @ Lalu @ Md. Lalu @ Md. Izhar Mansuri Son of Late Md. Gulam @ Gulam Rasul Resident of village - Pachpania, P.S.- Madhepur, District - Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Nitu Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Madhepur PS case no. 99 of 2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 303(2), 324(4), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution story, as per the First Information Report, on 31.07.2024, while the informant was going on his motorcycle and no sooner than he reached near Sarauni Punarvash, the petitioner along with other accused persons started chasing him. Subsequently, the petitioner informed the second advance party on phone to block the road and the informant stopped there. After sometime, 10-15 unknown persons having arms reached there and fired a shot at the back

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2405 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/2 light and front mirror of vehicle. They snatched the golden chain worth Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two lac fifty thousand) and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) from the informant.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of false and concocted story due to dirty village politics. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner and nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the materials available on record including the impugned order of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jhanjharpur, who taking note of the nature of allegation and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to differ with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jhanjharpur.

6. The prayer for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) khushbu/- U T