Patna High Court
Hirday Paswan @ Hriday PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the applications.
Summary
The petitioners Raju Paswan and Hirday Paswan applied for regular bail in a case registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code for robbery. Their earlier bail applications had been rejected, and they contended that no witness had been examined. The State argued that all witnesses had been examined and emphasized the gravity of the offence, citing the self‑inculpatory statement of co‑accused Nitish Kumar. The court, considering the seriousness of the robbery and the co‑accused’s statement, found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Accordingly, the bail applications were dismissed and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case of robbery under Section 394 IPC considering the seriousness of the offence
- Whether the self‑inculpatory statement of a co‑accused is sufficient ground to deny bail
- Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial in the absence of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 394
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 394 IPC
- criminal procedure
- high court
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78992 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2022 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
======================================================
Raju Paswan Son of Kamal Paswan Resident of Village - Kamaldah, P.S. -
Paraiya, Dist. - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79130 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2022 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
======================================================
Hirday Paswan @ Hriday Paswan Son of Kamal Paswan Resident of Village -
Kamaldah, P.S. - Paraiya, Dist. - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 78992 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79130 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78992 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State in both the cases.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Amas P.S. Case
No. 02 of 2022 registered for the offence under Section 394 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioners have
been rejected vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 21115 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022
registered for the offence under Section 394 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, four
unknown criminals looted the informant after
assaulting him on his head by the back of the
pistol and took away motorcycle, mobile phone
and other articles from the informant.
4. The name of the petitioner has come
in the self-inculpatory statement of the co-
accused Nitish Kumar.
5. The petitioner is in jail since
4.1.2025.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no
witness has been examined and the petitioners deserve to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78992 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
released on bail.
5. Learned APP for the State has appeared and has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and
submitted that all the witnesses have been examined.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, these applications stand dismissed
with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…