Patna High Court
Faisal KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and held that the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
The appellant, a 19‑year‑old with a clean record, was charged under Sections 326(b) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly setting fire to a canopy and molesting his niece. He applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge‑cum‑Special Court, Siwan. The appellant contended that the FIR was delayed, the allegations were vague, and that a notice had been served to the respondent’s father, rendering the service valid. He further argued that the incident occurred inside the informant’s house, was not in public view, and that he was falsely implicated due to a neighbourly dispute. The High Court, after considering the submissions, set aside the lower court’s order and allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant be released on bail if arrested within six weeks, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The decision hinged on the validity of the notice and the lack of sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of the allegations and the service of notice.
- Whether the FIR and the delay in its registration justify denial of bail.
- Whether the notice served to the respondent’s father is valid and sufficient for proceeding.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 326(b), 3(5)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(iv)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- SC/ST Act
- notice service
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1958 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-700 Year-2024 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan
======================================================
Faisal Khan S/o Mrityunja Khan R/o Village- Dharm Makriyar Badli, P.S.-
Dhanauti, District- Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bandhu Manjhi S/o Ramanand Manjhi R/o Village- Dharm Makriyar Badli,
P.S.- Dhanauti, District- Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 09-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated
15.04.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Court, Siwan in connection with ABP No.2915 of
2024 arising out of Siwan Muffassil (Dhanauti O.P.) P. S. Case
No.700 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections
326(b), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
whereby his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been
rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1958 of 2025(5) dt.09-07-2026
2/3
appellant submits that from perusal of the office report dated
28.04.2026, it would manifest that ordinary notice has been
received by the father of the respondent no.2.
4. Since notice has been received by the father of
respondent no.2, hence it is deemed to be validly served.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and is a young boy aged about 19 years and the
informant alleges that appellant along with three unknown
accused set ablaze the canopy kept on the tarrice and acted
inappropriately with his dumb niece.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
allegation of setting ablaze the canopy kept on the tarrice is
general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the
date of occurrence is 01.11.2024 and the FIR came to be
instituted on 04.11.2024 i.e. after a delay of three days without
any plausible explanation. It is next submitted that appellant and
the informant are neighbours and are having dispute relating to
passage. It is further submitted that entire occurrence took place
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1958 of 2025(5) dt.09-07-2026
3/3
inside the house of the informant, thus was not in public view. It
is also submitted that this perhaps explains why the informant
despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest.
7. The learned Special P. P. opposes the anticipatory
bail application.
8. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 15.04.2025 is set-aside.
9. The appeal stands allowed.
10. The appellant, above-named, in the event of
his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Court, Siwan in connection with ABP No.2915 of 2024
arising out of Siwan Muffassil (Dhanauti O.P.) P. S. Case
No.700 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.