Patna High Court
Rahul SainiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a cash bond, sureties and specific conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Saini, arrested on 13‑12‑2024 in connection with a case under Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, sought bail. The prosecution alleged that a live cartridge and a mobile phone were recovered from him and highlighted a prior criminal antecedent, while also stating that the FIR had been quashed by the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the seizure list witnesses were police personnel, and that the investigation violated Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS. The court noted that a co‑accused had already been granted bail by the same bench and, after considering the procedural issues and the petitioner’s antecedents, ordered bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and several conditions. The bail order required the petitioner’s cooperation in trial, prohibited tampering with evidence or witnesses, and mandated verification of his criminal antecedent by the lower court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether non‑compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita affects the grant of bail.
- Impact of the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent and the quashing of the FIR by the Allahabad High Court on bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 105, 310(4), 310(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- Arms Act
- procedural compliance
- prior criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25401 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-420 Year-2024 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Rahul Saini S/o Dalchand Saini @ Dalchandra Saini Resident of Bhanpur
Khalsa, P.S- Gajraula, District- Amroha, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aftab Alam Siddiqui, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard Mr. Aftab Alam Siddiqui, learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as Mrs. Madhuri Lata, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
13.12.2024 in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No.
420/2024, Sessions Trial No. 224/2025 F.I.R. dated 14.12.2024
for the offences punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and
35 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, a live cartridge and
a keypad mobile phone was recovered from the possession of
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and they have falsely been implicated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25401 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
the present case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is
false and fabricated. The seizure list witnesses are police
personnel and there is non-compliance of Sections 103 and 105
of the BNSS. The co-accused person, namely, Ajay Sirgil has
been granted regular bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court
vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48880 of
2025. He further submits that the police after investigation
submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the
petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2024.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the
ground that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than
the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of
the bail application and submits that this FIR has been quashed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the co-accused person has been granted bail by the co-
ordinate bench of this court, let the petitioner, above named, 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 A.C.J.M., Birpur, Supaul in
connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 420/2024, subject to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25401 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
atul/-
U T
Checking your session…