Patna High Court
Mehnuddin @ MahinoddinversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the investigation is ongoing and the allegations are serious.
Summary
The petitioner, Mehnuddin, sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging his involvement in a dacoity where armed men looted two shops, amounting to Rs. 22 lakh, under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He claimed false implication based solely on a co-accused's confessional statement, asserting a business dispute and pointing to the absence of his identification in CCTV footage. The State argued that investigations linked the petitioner to a criminal gang and that the co-accused's statement could further substantiate the case, with other accused already charged. The Court noted the seriousness of the offence, the ongoing investigation, and the reliance on the co-accused's statement, and declined to open the sealed CCTV footage at this stage. Consequently, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the matter was not suitable for a mini‑trial and further investigation was required.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the alleged dacoity under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the co-accused's confessional statement and the pending CCTV evidence justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of identification in CCTV footage merit relief.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 310(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 310
- dacoity
- false implication
- co-accused confession
- CCTV evidence
- criminal investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61401 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2025 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Mehnuddin @ Mahinoddin S/o Md. Akhtar R/o Village - Madarganj, P.S -
Farbisganj (Simraha O.P), District - Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwajeet Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ram Krishna Yadav, advocte
For the State. : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 20-02-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Forbisganj Police Station Case No. 113 of 2025,
disclosing offences under Section 310(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
3. The Prosecution Case, as per the First Information
Report, is that on 28.02.2025 at about 7:15 P.M., while the
informant was at his grocery shop and was reconciling the day’s
sale proceeds with his brother, approximately 10–12 armed
miscreants entered the shop and at pistol point, looted a sum of
about Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs). The miscreants
also took away the informant’s Aadhaar Card, PAN Card,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61401 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
Driving Licence, Arms Licence, and mobile phone along with
the SIM card. It is further alleged that thereafter the said
miscreants entered into another shop, namely Gautam Bhandar
and looted a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on
the basis of the alleged confessional statement of a co-accused
who has already been arrested with whom the petitioner was
having inimical terms. The petitioner and the father of the co-
accused, Md. Ashique, are known to each other as both are
engaged in the cattle business, and on account of a business
dispute, the co-accused Md. Ashique has maliciously taken the
name of the petitioner in the present case. A Co-ordinate Bench
of this Hon’ble Court has called for the CCTV footage in
connection with the present case. Learned counsel draws
attention to paragraph 43 of the case diary, wherein
identification of the accused persons on the basis of CCTV
footage has been mentioned; however, the name of the present
petitioner does not appear.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submits that during the course of investigation, it has come to
light that the petitioner is associated with a gang operating in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61401 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
area and is involved in the commission of serious offences of
dacoity, including looting of shops. Some non-FIR accused
persons, namely Prince Kumar, Saurav Kumar, Monu Sharma
and Manoj Kumar, were taken into custody during investigation.
Another accused, Ranjan Yadav, was taken into custody on
remand in connection with Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 77 of 2025.
The said Ranjan Yadav was initially arrested in Shimraha P.S.
Case No. 64 of 2025. Learned counsel for the State further
submits that accused Md. Ashiq was arrested by Raniganj Police
Station and another accused, Md. Kadir, was also remanded in
the present case. During the course of investigation, the case has
been found true against the aforesaid non-FIR named accused
persons, and accordingly charge-sheet has been submitted
against them, excluding the present petitioner. The investigation
is still going on against the petitioner and one Manish Kumar.
6. Regards being had to the submissions made by the
parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and
the gravity of the offence and the fact that the statement of the
co-accused, may form the basis for further investigation against
the present petitioner. Since this Court is not conducting mini
trial at this stage, the CCTV footage produced in a sealed cover
is not being opened and the same is returned to the Investigating
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61401 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
Authority for the purpose of further investigation against the
petitioner and other accused persons, accordingly, I am not
inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. In the result, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…