Patna High Court
Muslim AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the stagnant investigation, absence of direct evidence, the accused’s clean antecedent and prolonged pre‑trial detention, bail must be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Muslim Alam, a 21‑year‑old with no prior criminal record, applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 103, 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning an alleged killing. His earlier bail plea had been rejected, and the investigating officer had made no progress in the investigation since that rejection. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, no direct evidence linked him to the crime, and the prosecution’s case relied solely on confessional statements of co‑accused, which are inadmissible. The State opposed bail but conceded the investigation remained stagnant. Considering the lack of new investigative material, the petitioner’s clean antecedent, his prolonged pre‑trial detention of over 15 months, and his young age, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the investigation has shown no progress and no direct evidence against the accused.
- Whether confessional statements of co‑accused can be relied upon to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the accused’s age, clean record, and prolonged pre‑trial custody warrant the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- investigation delay
- confessional statements
- young accused
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80189 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2024 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Muslim Alam, S/o Babuddin Miyan, R/O Village- Dilaman Chhapara, P.S-
Kesariya, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 30-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 253 of 2024 dated 06.10.2024
registered for the offences punishable under sections 103, 3(5)
and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The main submissions advanced by petitioner’s
counsel are that this is the second attempt of the petitioner to get
the relief of bail and his earlier prayer for the same relief was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 9884/2025 with giving him a liberty to renew his bail
prayer after completion of the investigation but there is no
progress in the investigation. It is further submitted that the
investigating officer has not taken any step to make further
investigation from the stage which was present when the
petitioner’s first prayer was rejected and in this regard, the up-to-
date case diary sent by the investigating officer through the trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80189 of 2025(3) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
court may be perused. It is further submitted that the petitioner is
a 21 year old young person, bears no criminal antecedent and has
been languishing in jail since 18.10.2024 and he is not named in
the FIR. It is lastly submitted that there is no direct evidence to
show the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged killing and after
the petitioner was taken into custody, the police failed to recover
any incriminating material from his possession and the main
materials, upon which the prosecution is relying for implicating
the petitioner, is the confessional statement of co-accused
persons, which is not admissible in the eye of law.
4. Though learned APP, while referring to the
paragraph Nos. 133 to 139, has opposed the bail prayer of the
petitioner but fairly accepts that there is no progress in the
investigation after the rejection of the petitioner’s earlier prayer
and the position of the investigation remains the same as it was
when the petitioner’s earlier prayer was rejected.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and mainly
taking into account the lingering attitude of the investigating
officer in keeping the investigation pending against the petitioner
and the prosecution has not been able to show the subsequent
development in the investigation after the rejection of the
petitioner’s earlier prayer and also keeping into consideration the
petitioner’s fair and clean antecedent, his custody period which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80189 of 2025(3) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
has been about 15 months and 12 days, coupled with his young
age, this Court is inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, let
the petitioner named-above be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court
concerned in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 253 of
2024, on the following conditions :-
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the
trial and shall be properly represented on each
and every date fixed by the trial court and shall
remain physically present as directed by the trial
court and on his absence on two consecutive
dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond
shall be cancelled by the trial court.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the
evidence or the witnesses then the prosecution
will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(3) One of the bailors shall be a close
relative of the petitioner who has sworn affidavit
in this miscellaneous petition.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
U T
Checking your session…