Patna High Court
Seraj KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Seraj Khan, sought anticipatory bail after a non‑bailable warrant was issued in a 2021 case alleging he participated in a robbery under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR named unknown accused, but the petitioner’s name appeared in a confessional statement made by Ajay Ram while in police custody, which the petitioner’s counsel argued lacks evidentiary value. The State highlighted the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner’s three prior criminal cases, and the need to interrogate him, opposing the bail. The Court considered these submissions and the gravity of the alleged road‑robbery, and decided not to extend anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner despite a non‑bailable warrant, prior criminal antecedents, and a confessional statement made in police custody
- Whether the confessional statement of Ajay Ram has evidentiary value for granting bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 392 IPC
- robbery
- non‑bailable warrant
- confessional statement
- prior criminal antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18896 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-365 Year-2021 Thana- UCHKAGAON District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Seraj Khan S/o Firoj Khan Resident of Village- Yado Pipra, P.S.- Hathwa,
District- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjya Kumar Chaubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases and the informant
alleges that three unknown accused intercepted him and
snatched 300 grams of jewellery on point of pistol.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR
is against unknown and name of the petitioner transpired in the
confessional statement of Ajay Ram in police custody which
does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the case is of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18896 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
2/2
the year 2021 and non-bailable warrant of arrest has already
been issued against the petitioner and petitioner has antecedent
of three cases and allegation is of road robbery. It is fairly
submitted that though confessional statement in police custody
does not have evidentiary value but then the case is of a serious
nature and it requires interrogation of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with
Uchkagaon P.S. Case No. 365 of 2021, P.T.N. 2158 of 2021
pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gopalganj/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…