Patna High Court
Md. Nadim @ Md. NadeemversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused does not constitute a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant anticipatory bail for another accused.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Nadim, sought anticipatory bail in a case arising from a police report (Case No.578 of 2024) involving offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. His earlier anticipatory bail applications had been rejected in two prior criminal miscellaneous matters (Cr. Misc. Nos.2561 and 4162 of 2025). He argued that the subsequent grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused in a related matter (Cr. Misc. No.19577 of 2025) constituted a material change in circumstances justifying relief. The State contended that the petitioner’s situation remained unchanged and that bail to another accused does not affect his own liability. The Court held that the grant of bail to a co‑accused does not amount to a change in circumstances for the petitioner and therefore refused to entertain the application. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused amounts to a material change in circumstances justifying anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
- Whether a petitioner whose earlier anticipatory bail applications were rejected can obtain relief on the basis of subsequent developments in related cases.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 61
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- change in circumstances
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73254 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-578 Year-2024 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna
======================================================
Md. Nadim @ Md. Nadeem S/o Md. Sabir R/o Village- Aunsi Babhangawan,
P.S.- Bifsy, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nafisu Zzoha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
4 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.578 of 2024 lodged under
Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61 & 3(5) of the B.N.S.,
2023 pending before the Court of S.D.J.M., Patna.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was earlier
dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.4162 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner has filed second anticipatory bail application
only due to this reason that other co-accused person has been
granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 30.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.19577 of 2025.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73254 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
for bail and submits that earlier, bail application has been
rejected in two criminal cases i.e., vide order dated 14.05.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. Case Nos. 2561 of 2025 and Cr. Misc.
No.4162 of 2025.
6. Counsel further submits that grant of anticipatory
bail to another co-accused cannot be a change in circumstances
as every accused persons have its own role in a case and
particularly, bail application of two accused persons have been
granted on merit, therefore, the present bail application is not
maintainable at all.
7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case
and the submissions made above, one plea which has been taken
by the petitioner that anticipatory bail of 2 accused persons have
been earlier rejected and anticipatory bail of one of the accused
persons has been subsequently granted by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, cannot be a change in circumstances and hence, not
maintainable. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is
hereby rejected.
8. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U T
Checking your session…