Patna High Court
Jiyauddin Khan @ Khanauf KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the prosecution failed to produce material evidence of his complicity and the delay was unreasonable.
Summary
The petitioner, Jiyauddin Khan, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a 2018 case (PS No. 329) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 341, 307, 34 and Arms Act section 27. The incident involved an attack on the informant's friend by unknown assailants, after which the injured party named the petitioner as a conspirator, allegedly motivated by a political rivalry between the petitioner's wife and the injured party's wife. The police delayed six years before filing a requisition for an arrest warrant, which was issued on 28‑01‑2025. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s three prior criminal antecedents and the alleged complicity. The Court held that antecedents alone do not justify denial of anticipatory bail absent cogent material, noted the lack of investigative evidence and the undue delay, and therefore granted anticipatory bail with conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite alleged involvement in offences under IPC and the Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the delay of six years in obtaining an arrest warrant and lack of material evidence preclude granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34, 341
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- political rivalry
- criminal antecedent
- delay in investigation
- Section 482
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28380 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-329 Year-2018 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Jiyauddin Khan @ Khanauf Khan S/o- Maulvi Alam Khan R/v- Jogauliya
Tola Gulab khan PS- Madhuban Dist-East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y. C. Verma, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Eashita Raj, Adv.
For the State : Ms.Nirmala Kumari, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Nafisuzoha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 09-01-2026 Heard Mr. Y. C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate for
the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State. The informant is represented through Mr. Nafisuzoha,
learned Advocate.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Brahampura P.S. Case No. 329 of 2018, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegedly, in the evening of the fateful day, while
the informant along with his friend, Umar Khan had gone to
Pathan Toli in connection with matrimonial alliance for his
daughter and when they were returning, in the meanwhile, they
heard the sound of firing from behind. Instantaneously, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28380 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
2/5
informant’s friend, who was seated behind him, made screaming
and said that someone has fired upon him. The informant saw
that two unknown miscreants riding on a motorcycle fired thrice
upon his friend. The injured was immediately taken to local
Hospital and later on he was referred to SKMCH, Muzaffarpur.
4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
referring to the FIR contended that admittedly the same has
been instituted against the unknown miscreants and the
informant claims to be an eye witness but he did not claim to
identify any one, muchless the petitioner. No witness or any
person at the place of occurrence had identified the actual
assailant but surprisingly the injured later on named the
petitioner as conspirator. The false implication of the petitioner
is writ large for the simple reason that the petitioner’s wife
Gudia Khatun contested an election for the post of Zila Parishad
in Ward No. 54, East Champaran against the wife of injured
Umar Khatun. Since the injured had been getting such
impression that his wife lost the election because the petitioner
did not stop his wife from contesting the election, hence there
was a long standing hostility between the parties. The
implication of the name of the petitioner is nothing but a move
to settle the personal grudge. Despite the case being registered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28380 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
3/5
on 08.10.2018, the police took no steps against the petitioner for
several years and it was only after a prolong delay that a
requisition was filed before the Court and arrest of warrant was
obtained against the petitioner on 28.01.2025. The police failed
to take any steps for over six years as there was no material
available on record. However, it appears that on political
pressure and undue persuasion, the police obtained the warrant
of arrest and thus the petitioner apprehending his arrest,
approached before the competent court for grant of anticipatory
bail. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that since the
petitioner is actively engaged in politics having hostility from
opponents which led to institution of some criminal cases and in
such premise the petitioner is facing three criminal antecedent
as has been disclosed in para-3 of the bail application. However,
the petitioner is on bail in all the cases.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
and the learned Advocate for the informant vehemently opposed
the bail application and submitted that the enmity is a sword
which cuts both the sides. The injured has categorically stated
before the police that in the incidence there appears to be
complicity of the petitioner along with others, who were found
nearby the place of occurrence. It is also contended that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28380 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
4/5
petitioner bears three criminal antecedent and for this reason
alone he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail;
besides he is evading his arrest since long.
6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the
learned Sr. Advocate/Advocates for the respective parties and
taking note of the mandate of the law that the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner cannot be the sole ground to deny
the privilege of pre-arrest bail unless there is cogent material
showing complicity of the person in the crime as also the fact
that save and except the suspicion regarding complicity of the
petitioner in the crime, as has been disclosed by the injured,
whose statement was recorded after nine days of the occurrence,
that too on account of previous enmity, there is no other
materials collected during the course of investigation; besides
the other facts that for the first time the police has filed
requisition for warrant of arrest against the petitioner after a
delay of six years and obtained the same on 28.01.2025, let the
petitioner abovenamed be released on bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (twenty
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28380 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
5/5
satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Muzaffarpur in connection with Brahampura P.S. Case No. 329
of 2018, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of
the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
U T
Checking your session…