Patna High Court
Pandab Paswan @ Pandat Paswan @ Pandap PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petitioner's application.
Summary
Pandab Paswan was charged under IPC sections 394 (dacoity), 302/34 (murder/culpable homicide) and Arms Act section 27 for a robbery during which a person was killed. The petitioner applied for bail for the third time, alleging lack of material evidence except a co‑accused’s confessional statement and a recovered sum of Rs. 3000. The prosecution highlighted the self‑inculpatory statement, recovery of loot from the petitioner, and the seriousness of the offence. The trial is nearing conclusion with only two witnesses left. Considering the gravity of the crime, the stage of the trial, and the evidence, the court refused to grant bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the seriousness of the offences (dacoity, murder, illegal arms) and the stage of the trial.
- Whether the material evidence, including the co‑accused’s statement and recovered loot, justifies continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 394
Subjects
- bail
- dacoity
- murder
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- trial stage
- self‑inculpatory statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32580 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2023 Thana- CHACKMEHSI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Pandab Paswan @ Pandat Paswan @ Pandap Paswan S/o Maksudan Paswan
R/o Village - Sakhaura, Ward No. 12, P.S - Piyar Hattha O.P, District -
Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 19-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. This is the 3rd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 109 of 2023
registered for the offence under Sections 394, 302/34 of the
I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 19.07.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 48427 of 2024 which
reads as follows:-
“The defect as pointed out by the office is
ignored.
2. The following order was passed on
13.12.2023:
“Heard learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and learned APP appearing on
behalf of the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32580 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
2/3
2. Let the defect(s), if any, be
removed within a period of four
weeks from today.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Chakmehsi P.S. Case
No. 109 of 2023 registered for the
offence under Sections 394, 302/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
4. As per the prosecution
case, a person carrying money was
stopped, money was looted by the
unknown criminals and he was shot
by the criminals and it has come
during investigation that the
petitioner has participated in the
crime.
5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that except for the
confessional statement of the co-
accused there is no material against
the petitioner. He further submits that
the petitioner has not been put on T.I.
Parade and the recovery of Rs. 3000
cannot be linked with the alleged
loot.
6. Learned APP for the State
has opposed the prayer of the bail of
the petitioner by contending that
petitioner is one of the gang members
involved in such kind of loot and
whenever they are short of money
they commit similar crime.
7. In view of the fact that one
person has been killed by the
criminals while committing loot, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer of
bail of the petitioner is rejected
herewith.
9. The District Judge,
Samastipur and the Superintendent of
Police, Samastipur are directed to
see to it that the trial of the accused
persons is not delayed.
10. It there is no sufficient
progress in the trial then the
petitioner many renew his prayer for
bail.
11. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the District Judge,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32580 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
3/3
Samastipur and the Superintendent of
Police, Samastipur through FAX and
e-Mail for its compliance forthwith.”
3. A person was killed while the loot was
being committed and the name of the petitioner
has come in the self-inculpatory statement of the
co-accused. A part of the looted amount has
been recovered from the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, this application is
again dismissed.”
4. In the trial, only two witnesses are left to be
examined.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial is on the verge of conclusion, I am not inclined to
review my earlier orders.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
sadique/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.