Patna High Court
Md. SaddamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Saddam, sought anticipatory bail after being named in FIR No.254/2025 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita including assault, robbery and attempt to murder. He alleged that the informant had falsely implicated him, claiming the allegations were exaggerated and that the FIR was later amended to include Section 109(2). The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges, the grievous injury inflicted on the informant's brother, and the risk of the petitioner absconding. The court examined the allegations, the amendment of the FIR, and the possibility of the petitioner fleeing. Concluding that the seriousness of the offences and the risk of absconding outweighed the petitioner's claims, the court denied anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in view of the seriousness of the alleged offences
- Whether the amendment of the FIR to include Section 109(2) affects the grant of anticipatory bail
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioner absconding if bail is granted
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(2), 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- assault
- robbery
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- grievous injury
- FIR amendment
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18485 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2025 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia
======================================================
Md. Saddam S/O Md. Sattar R/O Vill.- Murballa, P.S- Barhara Kothi, Dist -
Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
Ms Pooja Prasad, Adv
Mr. Rishi Sinha, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Barhara Kothi PS Case No. 254 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 352,
351(2), 109(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges
that his brother was going to the field and informant was
following him on a bicycle from behind, when 11 named
accused persons including the petitioner intercepted his brother
and started assaulting him brutally and when informant tried to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18485 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
save him, he was also assaulted brutally and petitioner assaulted
his brother by lathi, danda and rod above his eye causing injury
and accused snatched Rs. 5,000/- from his brother’s pocket.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
informant alleges that he was following his brother on a bicycle
when his brother was going to the field and he saw 11 named
accused persons intercepted his brother and assaulted him
brutally, but then brother of the informant suffered only one
injury, i.e., fracture of nasal bone, which has been opined to be
grievous, but then it is fairly submitted that informant also
specifically alleges that petitioner assaulted his brother by lathi,
danda and rod. It is thus submitted that it appears that
allegations are exaggerated. It is also submitted that initially
when the FIR was instituted, the same was not instituted under
Section 109(2) BNS, but subsequently Section 109(2) BNS was
added.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18485 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
application and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant that there may be some embellishment in the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, but then there is specific
allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the brother of the
informant causing injury above his eye and the brother of the
informant suffered grievous injury, i.e., fracture of nasal bone, a
vital part of the body. It is further submitted that investigation in
the case is continuing and if privilege of anticipatory bail is
granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking in considering made by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…