Patna High Court
Md. Rashid @ DavidversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Bail was denied as the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail given the serious nature of the allegations and his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Rashid @ David, was arrested in connection with a violent encounter in which miscreants fired on police and attempted to flee to Nepal. He is charged under IPC sections 353, 307, 332, 333, 412, 414 and Arms Act sections 25(1‑b)a, 26, 27, 35, with the prosecution alleging possession of a carbine, cash and other loot. The petitioner contended that he is innocent, the evidence was planted, and that he has been in custody since June 2023 without trial. The State highlighted his alleged criminal antecedents, the injuries to police vehicles, and the recovery of weapons and cash as proof of his involvement. The court, considering the seriousness of the offences, the alleged threat to public safety and the petitioner’s prior record, refused bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and ensure witness production.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and the evidence against him
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 332, 333, 353, 412, 414
- NDPS Act — s. 11C, 20B, 22, 34, 8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- Arms Act
- serious offences
- prior criminal record
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73863 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2023 Thana- SIWAIPATTI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Md. Rashid @ David Son of Md. Ajfar, Resident of village - Thikahi, P.S.-
Hatuhouri, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with STR No. 176 of 2024, arising out of Siwaipatti
P.S. Case No. 121 of 2023 dated 14.06.2023, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 353, 307, 332, 333, 412 and
414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and
35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, police received
information about assembly of criminals of Kanti P.S. Case No.
407 of 2023 in a litchi orchard. The police surrounded the place
and apprehended the co-accused persons. Five miscreants
including this petitioner fled away from the spot and Kanti P.S.
Case No. 442 of 2023 was registered under Sections 489A,
489B, 489C, 489D and 489E of the IPC and Sections 25(1-b)a,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73863 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
2/4
26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 8, 20B, 11C, 22 and 34
of the NDPS Act. Further, information was received about the
petitioner and other co-accused persons trying to flee away to
Nepal. A team was constituted and police laid a siege at certain
identified place on the basis of tower location of mobile phones
of miscreants. The vehicle of the miscreants was signalled to
stop, but the miscreants indiscriminately fired upon the police
party. However, their vehicle got stuck due to blockade by the
police vehicle and the miscreants tried to run away on foot. In
exchange of fire, some of them received injuries including this
petitioner, who was apprehended carrying a carbine with eight
live cartridges. Other co-accused persons were also apprehended
with different fire-arms and ammunition. A recovery of Rs.
9,32,250/- along with a laptop was made form the vehicle of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely
been implicated in the present case. No occurrence in the
manner as alleged has ever taken place. The petitioner has been
implicated due to his criminal antecedent. The recovery is
planted. No police personnel received any injuries and only the
petitioner and other co-accused persons have received injuries in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73863 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
3/4
the firing. Charges have been framed on 23.05.2025, but till date
trial has not been concluded. There is no likelihood of early
conclusion of trial and pettioner is in custody since 15.06.2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner and submits that the petitioner is a veteran criminal
and carries antecedent of 10 cases of serious nature. The police
vehicle were indiscriminately fired upon by the miscreants and a
number of holes on police vehicles bear testimony of this firing.
The petitioner was apprehended carrying a sophisticated
weapon and further recovery of the looted cash and other
articles were made from their vehicle. All the miscreants were
carrying fire-arms and they were apprehended with fire-arms
and magazines etc.
6. Having regard to the nature of allegation against
the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail
and hence, his prayer for bail is rejected.
7. A report has been called for in this case from the
learned trial Court about the present stage of trial and likely
time for its conclusion and in the report, the learned trial Court
has submitted that the original case record had been called for in
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Muzaffarpur
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73863 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
4/4
on 07.10.2025 and thereafter, the record has not been returned to
it. Learned trial Court has further submitted that it expects to
conclude the trial in next six months after receiving the record
from the Court learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Muzaffarpur, if both parties co-operate and prosecution
produces witnesses on each and every date.
8. The learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Muzaffarpur is directed to ensure that the case record is
assigned to the Court concerned immediately, if not required by
any other Court and the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Muzaffarpur is directed to ensure production of witnesses who
are all official witnesses, as submitted by the learned trial Court,
on each and every date fixed by the learned trial Court for
prosecution evidence. It is expected that the learned trial Court
will conclude the trial in the time frame submitted by it.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U T
Checking your session…