Patna High Court
Md. Nizam @ NiyazversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where proceedings under Section 84 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita are already pending.
Summary
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a murder case (PS Case No. 618 of 2025) involving offences under several sections of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita. Petitioners 1 and 2 withdrew their bail applications after surrendering before the trial court, leading to dismissal of their petitions as withdrawn. Petitioner's 3, Md. Muzammil, claimed he only instigated the crime and had a clean antecedent, seeking anticipatory bail. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing that proceedings under Section 84 of the BNS were already initiated against him. The court accepted that Section 84 proceedings were pending and held that the anticipatory bail petition was not maintainable, thereby rejecting the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused has already surrendered before the trial court.
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when proceedings under Section 84 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita are already pending.
- Whether alleged instigation without physical participation suffices for granting anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 84
- murder
- bail petition
- surrender
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23763 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-618 Year-2025 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Md. Nizam @ Niyaz S/o Late Md. Mojib R/o Village - Mirzapur, P.S - Sadar
Purnia, District – Purnia.
2. Md. Saidur @ Saidur Rahman S/o Md. Nizam @ Niyaz R/o Village -
Mirzapur, P.S - Sadar Purnia, District – Purnia.
3. Md. Muzammil @ Mhzammil Haque S/o Shish Mohammad R/o Village -
Mirzapur, P.S - Sadar Purnia, District – Purnia.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhola Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar, APP
For the O.P. : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State and leaned counsel appearing for the
informant.
2. At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners that he may be permitted to withdraw the
anticipatory bail petition qua petitioner no. 1, namely, Md. Nizam
@ Niyaz and petitioner no. 2, namely, Md. Saidur @ Saidur
Rahman, as they surrendered before the learned trial court.
3. Considering aforesaid submission, the prayer of
anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 stands
dismissed as withdrawn being infructuous.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23763 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
Now, this petition survives only against petitioner no.
3, namely, Md. Muzammil @ Muzammil Haque.
4. The accused/petitioner apprehending his arrest in
connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 618 of 2025 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(1),
109, 74, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita and later
on 03.01.2026 offence under Section 103(1) of the BNS was
added.
5. As per FIR, petitioner alleged to involved in
committing murder of son of the informant.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not involved in
physical assault and as per facial perusal of FIR, allegation as to
cause fatal physical assault is specifically available against co-
accused persons, namely, Tanjarul and Manjarul and this
petitioner was implicated only being their father, where maximum
allegation against this petitioner is to instigate as to give an order
to co-accused persons, namely, Tanjarul and Manjarul to kill the
son of the informant during the occurrence. It is submitted that
petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.
7. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
8. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23763 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
for the informant, while opposing the prayer of bail submitted
that the present bail petition is not maintainable for the reasons
that the proceedings under Section 84 of BNS already initiated
against petitioner no. 3, namely, Md. Muzammil @ Muzammil
Haque by the learned trial court vide its order dated 02.04.2026.
9. The aforesaid fact would not disputed by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
10. In view of aforesaid factual submission, as the
proceeding under Section 84 of BNS already initiated against
petitioner no. 3, namely, Md. Muzammil @ Muzammil Haque,
accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 3,
namely, Md. Muzammil @ Muzammil Haque stands rejected being
not maintainable.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…