Patna High Court
Sakil Ahemad @ TinkaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sakil Ahemad, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in PS Pranpur Case No. 173 of 2024, which involves offences punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleges that three unknown persons robbed an informant at gunpoint, seizing a motorcycle key, Rs. 35,000 and a mobile phone. The petitioner’s name was implicated based on the confessional statements of co‑accused Rohit Kumar and Aniket Kumar, which the petitioner contends are false. The State opposed bail, arguing that the alleged crime was well‑planned and that the petitioner has prior criminal antecedents. After considering the facts, the alleged planning, and the petitioner’s antecedents, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 given the alleged involvement and prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 309(4)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 309(4)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal antecedents
- robbery
- bail petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11956 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2024 Thana- PRANPUR District- Katihar
======================================================
Sakil Ahemad @ Tinka S/o Irfan Ansari R/o Village- Bastaul, P.S- Pranpur,
Dist- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Pranpur P.S. Case No. 173 of 2024, instituted for the
offences punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, three
unknown persons accosted the informant and looted his
motorcycle key, cash of Rs. 35,000/- and his mobile phone on
the point of pistol.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The
name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused Rohit Kumar and Aniket
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11956 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/2
Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
general and omnibus allegation has been made against the
petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner has three criminal antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further
submitted that petitioner has committed the alleged offence
under well planned manner. Therefore, he does not deserve to be
released on anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case as well as considering the criminal antecedents of the
petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…