Patna High Court
Md. ChhotuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail must be denied as the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and the material evidence recovered against him do not warrant release on bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Chhotu, was arrested in February 2024 in connection with a case involving alleged looting, charged under Sections 309(6), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He applied for regular bail for the second time, arguing that the trial had progressed with only one of seven witnesses examined. The prosecution highlighted that a PAN card belonging to the petitioner was recovered at the crime scene and that he has a prior criminal record. The trial court previously denied bail, noting the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s antecedents. On review, the Patna High Court found no new ground to overturn its earlier order and consequently rejected the bail application, allowing the petitioner to seek bail again if the trial is further delayed.
Issues considered
- What are the grounds for granting or refusing bail to a person charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act?
- Does the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and recovery of his PAN card at the crime scene justify denial of bail?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 118(1), 309(6), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedent
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- trial proceedings
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15371 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2024 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura
======================================================
Md. Chhotu S/o- Md. Sirajuddin Resident of Ranipatti Singhiyan, Ward No-
07 PS- Murliganj Dist- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rupesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 560 of 2024
registered for the offence under Sections 309(6), 118(1), 109
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27
of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 25.06.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 38340 of 2025 which
reads as follows:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 560 of 2024 registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 118(1),
109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15371 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/2
3. As per the prosecution case, unknown
criminals tried to loot the victim/informant.
4. From the place of occurrence, the Pan
Card of the petitioner has been recovered. The
petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2024. The petitioner
has criminal antecedent also.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner
has criminal antecedent also, I am not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the application stands
dismissed.
7. If the trial is delayed, the petitioner may
renew his prayer for bail
4. It is submitted that in the trial, out of seven
witnesses, one has been examined and the trial is progressing.
5. This Court finds no ground to review its earlier
order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…