Patna High Court
Md. Shadab KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
Regular bail was not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Shadab Khan, applied for regular bail in a case involving offences under Section 365 of the IPC, later amended to include Sections 302, 120B and 34. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was implicated based solely on the confessional statement of a co-accused, with no direct evidence linking him to the crime. The petitioner argued innocence, clean antecedents, and that he was not named in the FIR. The State opposed bail, noting the seriousness of the charges and that the trial was nearing its conclusion with most witnesses already examined. The court, after considering the lack of substantive evidence against the petitioner and the advanced stage of the trial, refused to grant bail and directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the serious nature of the offences (IPC Sections 365, 302, 120B, 34) and the reliance on a co-accused's confessional statement.
- Whether the proximity of the trial to its conclusion justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34, 365
Subjects
- regular bail
- IPC
- Section 365
- Section 302
- Section 120B
- Section 34
- confessional statement
- co-accused
- trial delay
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62991 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2024 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Md. Shadab Khan S/O Md Nasir Khan Resident of Village- Hariday Chak,
P.S. Kaler District- Arwal Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bachchan Jee Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-01-2026 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 Haspura P.S. Case No. 47 of 2024 for the offences
punishable under Section 365 of the IPC and later on
302/120B/34 of the IPC is added.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 29.02.2024 at
about 6 A.M., informant’s father went out from house but never
returned. It is further alleged that mobile number of his father is
switched off.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and falsely been implicated in this
case. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is not
named in the FIR and his name has been transpired on the basis
of confessional statement of co-accused person. Except
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62991 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
2/2
confessional statement, there is nothing against the petitioner to
show his involvement in the present case. The petitioner is a
person of clean antecedent and is in custody since 19.03.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail.
6. Supplementary affidavit shows that out of 19
witnesses, 14 witnesses have been examined. It appears that trial
is on verge of its conclusion. Earlier, prayer for regular bail of
the petitioner has been rejected.
7. Considering the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, it is rejected.
8. Learned Trial Court is directed to take every
endeavor to conclude the trial within a period of three months.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…