Patna High Court
Bablu MiyanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Bablu Miyan, the petitioner, was arrested in 2025 for a 2006 robbery and dacoity case (Section 395 IPC) involving an armed bus robbery. He applied for regular bail, claiming he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and was residing out of state at the time of the incident. The prosecution opposed bail, noting his three prior criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the offence. The court examined the delay between the alleged offence and the arrest, the nature of the charge, and the petitioner’s criminal record. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant bail, the judge rejected the bail application and ordered the trial to be expedited within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused in a dacoity case (Section 395 IPC) after a long lapse between the offence and arrest
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of non-mention in the FIR and alleged innocence affect the bail decision
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395
Subjects
- regular bail
- dacoity
- Section 395 IPC
- delay in trial
- criminal antecedents
- FIR
- bail petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58467 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2006 Thana- JADIA District- Supaul
======================================================
Bablu Miyan Son of Kuddus Miyan Resident of Village- Bishunpur, P.S.-
Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Patla Kumari
For the State : Mr. Akbar Ali
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 12-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with
Jadia P.S. Case No. 78 of 2006, registered for the offences punishable
under Section 395 of the IPC.
3. As per the prosecution story, on 13.11.2006, some
armed miscreants intercepted the passenger bus, holding the
conductor and driver at gunpoint. The assailants looted cash and
valuables from conductors and passengers and fled away.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
He has further submitted that the FIR is against some unknown
persons and the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He was residing
out of the State and was not aware with existence of this case. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58467 of 2025(5) dt.12-01-2026
2/2
petitioner is under custody since 07.02.2025.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail.
6. The present case is of the year 2006 and the petitioner
was arrested in the year 2025. He has three criminal antecedents.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, presently, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, it is rejected.
8. The learned Court below is directed to expedite the trial
and shall take every endevour to dispose it of within a period of six
months.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…