Patna High Court
Shamim AkhtarversusThe Union of india through National Investigation Agency, Delhi
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.
Summary
Shamim Akhtar, an under‑trial prisoner, filed a petition under Section 187(3) of the BNSS seeking bail, challenging an order that his custody had been extended to 180 days as of 22 January 2026. The Special Judge, NIA, had rejected the petition, stating there was no indication of the accused’s willingness to furnish bail‑bond. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined whether the appellant had contested the existence of the 22 January 2026 order or the 180‑day custody extension. The appellant’s counsel could not point to any pleading in the memorandum of appeal that disputed those factual findings. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the petition under Section 187(3) of the BNSS is maintainable in view of the alleged 180‑day custody extension.
- Whether the appellant successfully contested the existence of the order dated 22‑01‑2026 and the extension of custody.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 187(3)
Subjects
- bail
- custody extension
- maintainability
- Special Judge NIA
- criminal appeal
- Section 187(3) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.366 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2022 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Shamim Akhtar Son of Md. Wasimuddin Ahmed Resident of village-
Khasganj, PS- Sohsarai, Biharsharif,District -Nalanda
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, Delhi
2. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, Patna
3. Sh. Vipin Kumar, Investigating Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
NIA,Branch officer,Lucknow
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Preeti Pundir, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. PP, NIA
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
3 08-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl. PP for the N.I.A.
2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated
17.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Bihar,
Patna in Special Case No. 06/2025, arising out of R.C. No. /31 /
2022 / NIA/DLI. For better appreciation of the entire matter, it
seems just and proper to extract the entire order dated
17.02.2026 hereunder:-
“1. Heard on the petition dated 12.02.2026
of under trial prisoner Shamim Akhtar. The
said petition has purportedly been filed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.366 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
2/3
within the purview of Section 187(3) of
BNSS. Reply of NIA is on record.
2. This is a matter of record that vide Order
dated 22.01.2026, the custody period of
accused Shamim Akhtar has already been
extended up to 180 days and whereas the
accused is in custody since 30.10.2025. This
is also the matter of the record that prior to
such extension, there was nothing on record
so as to show the willingness of the accused
to furnish the bail-bond.
3. In view of the aforesaid circumstances,
the prayer of the petition under
consideration is hereby rejected as not
maintainable.”
3. On a bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears
that in paragraph '2', the learned Special Judge, NIA has
categorically recorded that vide order dated 22.01.2026, the
custody period of the accused has already been extended up to
180 days and that the accused is in custody since 30.10.2025.
4. We called upon learned counsel for the appellant to
demonstrate from the pleading available on the record that this
part of the statement made in paragraph '2' of the impugned
order has been controverted.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
is no such pleading in the memorandum of appeal. It is not the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.366 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
3/3
case of the appellant that there is no order dated 22.01.2026. It
is also not the case of the appellant that the custody period of
the accused has not been extended up to 180 days. At least there
is no pleading to this effect.
6. In such circumstance, we find no reason to interfere
with the impugned order.
7. This appeal is devoid of merit. It is dismissed
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.