Patna High Court
Md. HakimversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioners, a family of four from Saidpur, Vaishali, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Mahua P.S. Case No. 1013 of 2025) alleging offences under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable and Securities Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, including assault, molestation, robbery and attempted shooting. The prosecution alleged that on 24‑09‑2025 the petitioners, with five unidentified armed men, attacked the informant’s house, looted cash and jewelry, and attempted to fire at the informant’s father. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated due to a land dispute, highlighted the 19‑day delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any injury, and their clean criminal record. The court examined the delay, the lack of serious injury, and the nature of the allegations, and concluded that the petitioners did not pose a flight risk or threat to the investigation. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, a requirement to cooperate with the investigation, and a prohibition on threatening the informant.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the alleged offences and the delay in lodging the FIR.
- Whether the petitioners are likely to flee, tamper with evidence, or threaten the informant.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR delay
- false implication
- land dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Negotiable and Securities Act
- Arms Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13675 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1013 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Md. Hakim D/o Md. Hafij R/o Village - Said Kanhauli chak, Saidpur, P.S. -
Mahua, District - Vaishali.
2. Saliman Khatun Wife of Md. Hakim R/o Village - Said Kanhauli chak,
Saidpur, P.S. - Mahua, District - Vaishali.
3. Md. Irfan Son of Md. Hakim R/o Village - Said Kanhauli chak, Saidpur, P.S.
- Mahua, District - Vaishali.
4. Md. Alim Son of Md. Hakim R/o Village - Said Kanhauli chak, Saidpur, P.S.
- Mahua, District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Rupa Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No.-II, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Mahuwa P.S. Case No. 1013 of 2025 in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 329(4), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 24.09.2025, the
petitioners along with five unidentified armed persons allegedly
came to the informant’s house and started assaulting the family,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13675 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
molested the informant’s wife and looted cash and jewelry. It is
further alleged that they attempted to shoot the informant’s
father.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case on account of land dispute between the parties and
have been saddled with false allegation of theft. The allegation
in the first information report pertains to taking away of Rs.
25,000/- from under the bed and also taking away of other
articles coupled with the allegation of even resorting to firing
but it is strange that no one was hurt in the incident. It has also
been submitted that the First Information Report itself was
lodged after 19 days of the incident and no explanation has been
tendered by the informant with regard to such inordinate delay.
Further, the petitioners have no criminal antecedent and they are
pattidars.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the inordinate delay in
lodging of the FIR coupled with the fact that there are no serious
allegation of causing any injury etc., let the above named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13675 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today,
be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Mahuwa
P.S. Case No. 1013 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid
down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
B.N.S.S., subject to the condition that:
(I) The petitioners shall cooperate in the
investigation and make themselves available before the
investigating agency as and when required.
7. It is further directed that the petitioners would
not indulge in any act of threatening etc. with respect to the
informant.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…