Patna High Court
Md. Wakil @ Md. Wakil Ahamad @ Md. Vakil @ Md. Vakil Ahmad @ Wakil Miyan@Dukhu@Dukhu MiyanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail cannot be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances; the application is rejected.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Wakil, was charged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a 2011 murder. He was declared an absconder in 2016 and has been in custody since January 2024. In his second bail application, the petitioner argued that only one injury caused the death and that several witnesses had turned hostile or altered their statements. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s long period as an absconder and a Supreme Court decision (X vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024) that bars bail at this stage. The Patna High Court, applying the Supreme Court precedent and considering the petitioner’s abscondence, rejected the bail application and ordered the police to ensure witness attendance for the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused who has been an absconder for 13 years and whose trial is in progress.
- Whether the hostility of witnesses and limited evidence justify granting bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court judgment in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (2024) is applicable to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- absconder
- murder
- IPC 302
- Arms Act 27
- witness hostility
- trial delay
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22026 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2011 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya
======================================================
Md. Wakil @ Md. Wakil Ahamad @ Md. Vakil @ Md. Vakil Ahmad @ Wakil
Miyan@Dukhu@Dukhu Miyan S/o Late Md. Alidaz Miyan @ Md. Alidar
R/o Village- Manjhouli, PS- Nimchak Bathani, Distt- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kunwar Narayan Jamuar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard the learned Senior 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 Nimchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 01 of 2011
registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 08.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 8238 of 2025.
4. As per F.I.R., the occurrence had taken place on
02.01.2011. The specific allegation against the petitioner and
co-accused, Md. Imran is that he fired at Md. Pyaru who died
during course of treatment.
5. The case was registered in 2011. The petitioner was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22026 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
charge-sheeted but chose not to appear and was therefore
declared an absconder in 2016. The petitioner is now in custody
since 24.01.2024 and is facing trial.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Y.V. Giri submits that in the trial out of eight witnesses, three
witnesses have been examined and of these three, two witnesses
have turned hostile and one witness has changed the prosecution
version. It is further submitted that only one injury has been
caused to the deceased and therefore, the petitioner may be
granted bail.
7. The learned APP for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner
is an absconder and the trial has started. He also relies upon a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539
particularly paragraph 16, to contend that the petitioner cannot
be granted bail at this stage by examining the depositions of the
witnesses.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and taking into account the fact that the petitioner
was an absconder for 13 years, as well as the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22026 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
(supra), this application is hereby rejected.
9. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya is
directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the trial so
that the trial is not delayed any further.
10. If the trial is still delayed by the prosecution, the
petitioner has liberty to approach this Court.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…