Patna High Court
Shahid KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the commencement of trial preclude the grant of regular bail.
Summary
Shahid Khan was charged under Sections 111, 109, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar National Security Act, 2023 and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting a victim on a court campus while the victim was in custody. The petitioner, who is already accused in seventeen cases, sought regular bail for the offence registered as Amas P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024. The trial has already commenced and the petitioner has been in custody since 9 December 2024. The court, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant, noted the gravity of the offence, the petitioner’s alleged criminal reputation and the fact that the trial was underway, and therefore refused to grant bail. The earlier bail denial dated 23 July 2025 was upheld, and the application was dismissed, with a direction that the petitioner may re‑apply if the prosecution causes further delay.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner accused of serious offences under the Bihar National Security Act and the Arms Act when the trial has already commenced.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal record and alleged attempt to kill a victim in judicial custody justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
- Bihar National Security Act, 2023 — s. 109, 111, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- Bihar National Security Act
- serious offence
- trial commencement
- pending cases
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10318 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2024 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
======================================================
Shahid Khan S/O Nasruddin Khan R/O Village- Karmauni, Police Station-
Dobhi, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Anish Chandra, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 233 of
2024 registered for the offence under Sections 111, 109, 61(2),
3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 25(1-b)a, 26, 35, 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been
rejected vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
16402 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024
registered for the offence under Sections 111,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10318 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
109, 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section
25(1-b)a, 26, 35, 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner and other co-accused persons are said
to have shot at the victim and tried to kill him in
the Court campus while the victim was in
custody. The petitioner is accused in seventeen
cases as per the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in
ten cases and seven cases are still pending. The
petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well
as learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned
counsel for the informant has assured this Court
that the informant will produce the witnesses on
the date fixed so that the trial is not delayed as
and when the charges are framed.
6. It appears that the petitioner is a
dreaded criminal of that area and he has tried to
kill the victim in judicial custody.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is hereby rejected.
9. The Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Gaya is directed to ensure the
commitment of the case so that the trial of such
dreaded criminal is not delayed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one
witness has been examined.
5. Learned counsel for the victim gives an undertaking
that he will examine the prosecution witnesses on the date fixed
in the trial.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10318 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
8. If the prosecution still delays the trial, the petitioner
may renew his prayer for bail.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.