Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Md. Saiyad Danish @ Md. Danish Hashmi @ Syed Danish HashmiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Bail was denied as the nature of the offence and the petitioner’s antecedents warranted continued custody.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Saiyad Danish, was charged under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a loot of Rs 12 lakhs, with his name emerging from a co‑accused’s self‑inculpatory statement and his own confession. He is also implicated in six similar cases and has been in custody since 8 December 2023. The petitioner sought bail for the second time after an earlier denial. The Court examined the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s antecedents, and the risk to the investigation. Considering the nature of the crime and the petitioner’s prior involvement, the Court declined to grant bail. The bail application was dismissed, with the Court noting that its observations are limited to this application and do not prejudice the trial’s merits.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences under Section 394 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and his antecedent criminal history.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Arms Act
  • criminal procedure
  • confession
  • serious offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81568 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2022 Thana- SARAI District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Saiyad Danish @ Md. Danish Hashmi @ Syed Danish Hashmi S/O Md.
                 Syed Salahuddin @ Syed Salahuddin R/O Village- Enayatpur Prabodhi, P.S-
                 Sarai,Dist- Vaishali.

                                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s      :        Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State             :        Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   05-05-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the

                   petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sarai P.S. Case

                   No. 318 of 2022 registered for the offence under Section 394 of

                   the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                 3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has

                   been rejected vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.

                   No. 61439 of 2024.

                                 4. Unknown criminals committed loot of Rs. 12 lakhs

                   from the informant. The name of the petitioner has come during

                   investigation in the self inculpatory statement of a co-accused.

                   The petitioner has also given his confession. The petitioner is
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81568 of 2025(4) dt.05-05-2026
                                                       2/2




                     accused in six more cases of similar nature. The petitioner is in

                     custody since 08.12.2023.

                                  5. Considering the nature of offence and also the

                     antecedent, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

                                  6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

                                  7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made

                     herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail

                     application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at

                     any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express

                     any opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                          (Sandeep Kumar, J)

P. Kumar

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.