Patna High Court
Md. Hasnain KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Hasnain Khan, was implicated in a robbery‑and‑attempt‑to‑murder case (Section 310(2) IPC) after a co‑accused’s confessional statement named him, although his name does not appear in the FIR. He had been in custody since August 2025 and the charge sheet was already filed. The petitioner argued that there was no material linking him to the crime, no recovery from his possession, and no risk of evidence tampering. The State contended that the confessional statement and recovery from a co‑accused’s house established his involvement, opposing bail. The court examined the custody period, the submitted charge sheet, and the absence of any likelihood of tampering, and consequently ordered his release on bail with specified conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being implicated solely through a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
- Whether there is a likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses that would justify denial of bail.
- Whether the fact that the petitioner’s name does not appear in the FIR but emerged later affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 310(2)
Subjects
- bail
- attempt to murder
- Section 310 IPC
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88252 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- ARIYARI District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Md. Hasnain Khan S/O Md. Hasim Khan R/O Village - Mohanpur, P.S-
Chandrapur, District - Jamui
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Ariyari P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 310(2) of BNS.
3. As per prosecution case, On 28.05.2025 the
informant along with his cousin Amit Verma, was going on
scooty to his house after closing his jewellery shop and when
they reached the road leading to Ekrayan and Kemra about 500
metres east of Diha village, suddenly eight unknown persons on
three motorcycles came and stopped the informant on the point
of pistol and asked him to hand over the money and mobile. It is
alleged that when same was protested, the accused persons
started assaulting the informant by means of slap and threatened
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88252 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
to shoot them, if they refused to give mobile and money. The
informant got scared. Thereafter, the accused persons snatched
mobile phone, Rs. 27,000/- kept in pocket, Rs. 2160/- kept in
purse, AADHAR Card, Pan Card, Voter ID Card, paper of
scooty as well as key of shop from the informant and Rs. 2500/-,
key of shop as well as mobile from the pocket of Amit Verma.
The informant claims that the accused persons were age group
of 25-26 years and they were carrying katta in their hands.
Hence, FIR has been registered against unknown.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as
alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR
and his name transpired in this case upon the confessional
statement of co-accused Sambhu Kumar and except the
aforesaid confessional statement, there is nothing on record to
connect the present petitioner with the alleged occurrence. He
further submits that nothing has been recovered either from the
house or conscious possession of the petitioner. He further
submits that recovery has been made from the house of co-
accused Sambhu Kumar, as mentioned in the impugned order.
He further submits that no TIP has been done as yet. Petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88252 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
is in custody since 12.08.2025. Charge sheet has been submitted
in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the
prosecution evidence. He further submits that petitioner bears
criminal antecedent of one case in which he is on bail and in the
said case, petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has
been surfaced during course of investigation. Petitioner has
nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. In this way, petitioner
deserves bail.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that though FIR has
been lodged against unknown but during course of investigation
name of petitioner has been surfaced upon the confessional
statement of co-accused Sambhu Kumar. He further submits that
there is recovery from the house of co-accused Sambhu Kumar
and petitioner is one of the associates of the alleged crime and
hence, petitioner does not deserve bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, period of custody, charge sheet has been submitted in the
case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the
prosecution evidence, argument advanced on behalf of both
sides and also taking into consideration the material available on
record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88252 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sheikhpura
in connection with Ariyari P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, subject to
following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or
mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn
the affidavit in bail application.
(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will
remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive
dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.
(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or
the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/-
U T
Checking your session…