Patna High Court
Waris @ Md. BarishversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Waris, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in Palasi Police Station Case No.479 of 2025, where he was implicated in alleged theft of a motorcycle under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Police acted on a secret tip, identified Waris fleeing the scene, and seized a black Hero Honda motorcycle from his house, preparing a seizure list that the petitioner contended violated Section 103 of the BNSS and that the property was in joint family possession. The petitioner argued he had no prior criminal record, earned a livelihood as a laborer, and that the only evidence against him was villagers’ identification. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, but the court found the material linking the petitioner to the crime insufficient and noted procedural lapses in the seizure. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC.
- Whether the seizure of the motorcycle complied with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether there is sufficient material evidence to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 303(2), 317(2)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- seizure procedure
- Section 103 BNSS
- motor vehicle theft
- clean antecedent
- joint possession
- CrPC Section 438
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22364 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-479 Year-2025 Thana- PALASI District- Araria
======================================================
Waris @ Md. Barish S/o- Dahlu R/o- Mehro Chowk Ward No- 01 P.S- Palasi
District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhav Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 06-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Palasi P.S. Case No.479 of 2025, F.I.R dated
04.12.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 04.12.2025,
during evening patrol and raid duty, the police received secret
information at Hasanpur Chowk regarding a stolen motorcycle
allegedly kept at the house of the petitioner, Md. Waris. Acting
on the information, the police reached near his house at about
19:36 hrs, where a person allegedly fled on seeing the police
and escaped in the darkness. Local residents reportedly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22364 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
identified the fleeing person as the petitioner. Thereafter, the
police conducted a search of the petitioner’s house in presence
of police personnel acting as witnesses and allegedly recovered
a black Hero Honda Super Splendor motorcycle without a
number plate. Verification through the POS machine allegedly
revealed that the motorcycle belonged to Md. Suleman and had
been reported stolen in connection with Jokihat P.S. Case No.
146/2022 dated 21.03.2022 under Section 379 IPC. A seizure
list was prepared and the motorcycle was brought to the police
station.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
seizure list of the stolen motorcycle, which is said to have been
made is in contravention of Section 103 of the BNSS and the
procedures prescribed for the seizure have been violated and the
name of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the basis of
villagers having seen this petitioner running from the place of
occurrence. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is
innocent and the property from where recovery is said to have
been made is in joint possession of family members. It has next
been submitted that the petitioner is earning his livelihood by
rendering labor services in the locality. Lastly, it has been
submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22364 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that there is no prudent material to implicate this petitioner, save
and except the submission made by the villagers and the
property from where recovery is said to have been made is in
joint possession of family members and further, the procedures
for seizure has not been followed and the petitioner has clean
antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned CJM, Araria, in connection with
Palasi P.S. Case No.479 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22364 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…