Patna High Court
Md. SaddamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The High Court dismissed the bail application, refusing to grant bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Saddam, was implicated in a robbery of silver and gold where an accomplice discharged a firearm, injuring a villager. He was named through a co‑accused's confessional statement, has a prior criminal record, and has been in custody since December 2024. The petitioner sought regular bail for offences under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court had earlier rejected bail applications for the same case, citing the seriousness of the crime and the petitioner’s antecedents. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition, leaving the High Court’s order intact. On a second bail application, the High Court again declined bail, reaffirming its earlier reasoning.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner who has confessed to participation in a violent robbery and possesses prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 309(4), 309(6)
Subjects
- bail
- confession
- criminal antecedents
- theft
- arms act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court
- special leave petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32974 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2024 Thana- Vishanpur District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Md. Saddam S/o Jakir @ Md. Zakir Resident of Village- Bagmara, Ward No.
2, P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirmala Kumari, Adv.
======================================================
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 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 23 of 2024
registered for the offence under Sections 309(4), 309(6) &
109(1) of the B.N.S. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 09.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 18507 of 2025 which
reads as follows:-
“These applications are arising out of the
same P.S. Case Number i.e., Bishanpur P.S.
Case No. 23 of 2024. Hence, they are being
heard together and are being decided by a
common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioners seek regular bail in
connection with Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 23 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32974 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
2/3
2024 registered for the offence under Sections
309(4), 309(6), 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, three
unknown criminals looted four kilograms of
silver and four bhars of gold from the informant
and thereafter when the co-villagers tried to
catch hold of the criminals, one of the criminals
fired from his pistol which caused injury to one
villager.
5. So far as the petitioner namely Mun
Munga Saha is concerned, he has given a self-
inculpatory statement and has confessed his
involvement in the crime. The petitioner has two
criminal antecedents also. The petitioner is in
custody since 05.12.2024.
6. So far as the petitioner namely
Tanveer Alam @ Tanveer is concerned, the
name of the petitioner has come in the case
during investigation. The petitioner has
confessed his involvement in the crime and also
stated the name of other accused persons as his
associates. The petitioner is in custody since
05.12.2024 and has two criminal antecedents.
7. So far as the petitioner namely Md.
Saddam is concerned, his name has come in the
case on the confessional statement of co-
accused Lalu @ Gulab. The petitioner has one
criminal antecedent and is in custody since
05.12.2024.
8. So far as the petitioner namely
Kuddam is concerned, the name of the petitioner
in the case has come on the confessional
statement of co-accused Lalu @ Gulab. The
petitioner has three criminal antecedents and is
in custody since 05.12.2024.
9. Considering the allegations levelled
against the petitioners as well as the criminal
antecedents of the petitioners, I am not inclined
to grant bail to the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, these applications for
regular bail are hereby rejected.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32974 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
3/3
4. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9655/2025 of
the petitioner vide the following order:-
“Upon hearing the counsel, the Court
made the following
ORDER
Having considered the averments made
in the counter affidavit filed by the State of
Bihar, we find no good ground and reason to
interfere with the impugned
judgment(s)/order(s) passed by the High Court
at this stage.
The special leave petitions are,
accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.”
5. Considering the allegation levelled against the
petitioner, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.
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.