Patna High Court
Md. Firangzeb @ Firangzeb @ Md. Sahil @ SahilversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Firangzeb, was charged under Sections 137(2), 140(1), 3(5) and later 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for murder and conspiracy to seize land. He applied for regular bail for Case No. 1025 of 2024, having been in custody since 2 August 2024. The trial had already commenced and several charge‑sheet witnesses had been examined. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) that bail is ordinarily not granted once trial is underway and witnesses are examined, the Patna High Court dismissed the bail application, finding no ground to revisit its earlier order. Consequently, the petition for bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of murder and conspiracy after the trial has commenced and witnesses have been examined.
- Whether the earlier order denying bail can be reviewed in light of the trial’s progress.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 137(2), 140(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- trial commencement
- witness examination
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- regular bail
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70082 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1025 Year-2024 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Md. Firangzeb @ Firangzeb @ Md. Sahil @ Sahil S/o Mohammad Kudus R/o
Village - Patiyasa, P.S - Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for
grant of regular bail in connection Ahiyapur (Garhan O.P.) P.S.
Case No. 1025 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections
137(2), 140(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. Earlier the bail application
of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.05.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10993 of 2025 along with Cr. Misc. No.
19738/2025 which reads as under:-
Both these application are arising from
the same P.S. i.e., Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 1025 of
2024, therefore, they are being heard together and
are being decided by a common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioners seek bail in connection
with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 1025 of 2024
registered for the offence punishable under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70082 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
Sections 137(2), 140(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita to which later on Section 103(1) of
the BNS was added.
4. The petitioners have been found
involved in the murder of the deceased. They have
entered into a conspiracy, called the deceased. To
capture the land of the deceased, they have killed
the deceased. The bail application of the other co-
accused has been rejected by this Court. The
petitioner are in custody since 02.08.2024.
5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the informant that the trial has started
and one witness has been examined.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence
and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online
SC 3539 observing that once the trial has started
and the witnesses are being examined, the accused
persons should not be granted bail ordinarily, these
applications are dismissed.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that from the report of the trial judge, it appears that
out of ten charge-sheet witnesses, seven witnesses have been
examined.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no
ground to review its earlier order.
5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.