Patna High Court
Badshah Khan @ BadshahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Badshah Khan and Farhan Khan, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with FIR No. 312 of 2025 alleging offences under the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the informant's son was shot by a co‑accused, Mr. Khan @ Sahnawaj, while Badshah Khan was said to have been in possession of a 'chapar' and Farhan Khan was merely present. The petitioners argued that no direct assault was attributed to them and that the FIR was silent on any blow by Badshah Khan. The court examined the allegations, the injury report, and noted a similar case where anticipatory bail was granted. Relying on the lack of specific charges against the petitioners and the precedent, the court granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Badshah Khan and Farhan Khan despite allegations under the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita and Arms Act.
- Whether the FIR and injury report sufficiently implicate the petitioners in the alleged offences.
- Whether the precedent of Cr. Misc. No. 68566 of 2025 is applicable to extend anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(1), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita
- Arms Act
- kidnapping
- assault
- pre‑trial relief
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66592 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2025 Thana- DARAUNDA District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Badshah Khan @ Badshah Son of Late Rashid Khan Resident of village -
Rajanpura Ke Tola, P.S.- Daraundha, Distt.- Siwan.
2. Farhan Khan @ Farhan Son of Badshah Khan @ Badshah Resident of
village - Rajanpura Ke Tola, P.S.- Daraundha, Distt.- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Kumari Anupam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Sharda Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2026 Heard Mrs. Kumari Anupam, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mrs. Sharda Kumari, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Daraundha (M.H. Nagar) P.S. Case No. 312 of
2025 instituted under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(1),
3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the
Arms Act lodged on 20.06.2025 by the informant, Md. Nabib
Khan.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that his son after offering Namaz went to general store to
purchase and later, the informant also reached the same place.
The allegation is that the accused persons who belongs to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66592 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
2/5
same village were present there and tried to kidnap his son.
Further, on the order of Murshid Mukiya, the allegation is that
Mr. Khan @ Sahnawaj opened fire which hit his stomach and
the arm. He was rushed to the local hospital and in between,
considering the nature of injury, a video recording of his
statement was also made from the Sadar Hospital, Siwan. He
was shifted to Central Hospital and then to Gorakhpur. This
followed the FIR.
4. In this case, the coordinate bench had called for the
case diary which is on record and it shows that the injury report
support the prosecution story.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
though they have criminal antecedent, both have been lodged by
the informant’s side. A bare perusal of the FIR would show that
the main role has been assigned to Mr. Khan @ Sahnawaj who
opened fire causing injury to the informant’s son. Though,
allegation of having ‘Chapar’ in his hand has been assigned to
Badshah Khan (petitioner no.1), it is not the prosecution story
that he gave any blow.
6. So far as the petitioner no.2, Farhan Khan @
Farhan is concerned, no role has been assigned to him save and
except the allegation that he was present.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66592 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
3/5
7. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 on the other hand
submits that beside specific allegation against Mr. Khan @
Sahnawaj, the presence alongwith ‘Chapar’ has been assigned
to Badshah Khan and the injured had head injury.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners replied to the
said submission stating that the FIR clearly shows that due to
gun shot injury, the informant’s son fell on the ground which
may have caused the injury, the FIR is silent about it.
9. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
the fact that as per the allegation, on the order of Murshid
Mukhiya, Mr. Khan @ Sahnawaj opened fire causing injuries.
Though role has been assigned to Badshah Khan of having
‘Chapar’ in his hand, the allegation of assault is not there, the
same is the position with the second accused, Farhan Khan @
Farhan, one Md. Mohammad Shahbaz Khan @ Pappu Khan.
10. Further, similar situate accused Mohammad
Shahbaz Khan has been granted relief in Cr. Misc. No. 68566
of 2025 by a coordinate bench on 26.09.2025, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege
of anticipatory bail.
11. Let the petitioners be released on bail, in the event
of their arrest or surrender before the subordinate court within a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66592 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
4/5
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each in connection with Daraundha (M.H.
Nagar) P.S. Case No. 312 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned
ACJM-VI, Siwan subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/ Voter ID/Pan Card
ete.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for next six months to mark their
attendance and at the end of the period a certificate be submitted
before the Trial Court failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66592 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
5/5
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…