Patna High Court
Md. Arsi @ Md. AarshiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was not granted because of the seriousness of the offences and the fact that the trial had already commenced.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Arsi, was charged under Sections 394 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly attempting to snatch Rs. 10 lakh and an Apple tablet, and for shooting the informant in the leg during the robbery. He applied for regular bail, which was previously rejected on 19-04-2025. In the present application, the petitioner argued that five of eight witnesses had been examined and the trial was underway. The court, noting the gravity of the offences, the fact that the petitioner had shot the informant, and that the trial had already commenced, declined to overturn its earlier order and dismissed the bail application. The court further directed that if the trial is delayed due to prosecution fault, the petitioner may renew his bail prayer.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of dacoity and unlawful possession of arms when the trial is in progress.
- Whether delay in trial caused by the prosecution can justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 394
Subjects
- bail
- dacoity
- robbery
- arms act
- criminal procedure
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15118 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2024 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN District-
Darbhanga
======================================================
Md. Arsi @ Md. Aarshi S/O Md. Shamim @ Md Shameem R/O Village -
Afzala Tole Kheva, Jaliya Road, P.s - Biraul, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shama Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Vijayansh Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Kusheshwar
Asthan (K. Asthan) P.S. Case No. 11 of 2024 registered for the
offence under Sections 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 19.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 3978 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State Shri
Jharkhandi Upadhyay.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Kusheshwar Asthan (K. Asthan)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15118 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
P.S. Case No. 11 of 2024 registered for the
offence under Sections 394/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, when
the informant was returning home from his
petrol pump situated at Aurahi at around 10:00
PM, three persons sitting on an Apache
motorcycle intercepted him and tried to snatch
Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and one
Apple tablet from the informant and upon
informant’s resistance, they started firing due to
which two bullets hit on the knees of the
informant, meanwhile the assailants looted the
cash and tablet and fled away.
4. The petitioner has been identified as
one of the criminals who had committed loot and
shot the informant in his leg.
5. In the trial, out of eight witnesses,
three witnesses have already been examined and
the petitioner is in jail since 6.3.2024.
6. Considering the fact that the
petitioner has shot at the informant and has
participated in loot, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.
8. The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Darbhanga is directed to ensure the
attendance of the witnesses in the trial so that
the trial is not delayed. The informant also
undertakes to produce and examine the
witnesses in the trial.
9. If the trial of the petitioner is
delayed due to the fault of the prosecution side
then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
10. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned
counsel for the State will communicate a copy of
this order to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Darbhanga. Also communicate a copy of this
order to Senior Superintendent of Police,
Darbhanga through FAX for its compliance.”\
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15118 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
of eight witnesses, five witnesses have been examined.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
7. It is made clear that if the trial is delayed due to the
fault of the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for
bail.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…