Patna High Court
Md. Zeeshan @ Md. DishanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The bail application was dismissed because the confession made in police custody is admissible under Section 27 and does not warrant release.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Zeeshan, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 238 and 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the murder of an informant’s wife. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner enticed the wife, concealed her body, and that the dead body was recovered after the petitioner’s confessional statement to police. The petitioner argued that his confession, given while in police custody, should be excluded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and that there was no other material against him. The court examined the applicability of Section 27, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, and held that the confession made in custody is admissible. Consequently, the court found no sufficient ground to grant bail and dismissed the bail application, while leaving open the possibility of a fresh application if new circumstances arise.
Issues considered
- Whether a confession made by an accused while in police custody is excluded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Whether the existence of a confession and the consequent discovery of the dead body justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 137(2), 238, 87
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 27
Subjects
- bail
- confession
- police custody
- Section 27
- Indian Evidence Act
- criminal procedure
- B.N.S. 2023
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89893 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-429 Year-2025 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Md. Zeeshan @ Md. Dishan Son of Guddu @ Md. Guddu R/o Village - Pakki
Talaw, P.S. - Laheri, Dist. - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ramchandra Sahni
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
4 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Bihar P.S. Case No. 429 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 238 and 103(1) of the
B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the petitioner
has enticed the wife of the informant and has taken her away.
After much effort, she could not be searched and the informant
gave information for searching his wife. Ultimately, the dead body
of his wife was recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no
offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89893 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
submitted that in this case, from perusal of the para-20 of the case
diary, it is clear that the petitioner has given his confessional
statement and has confessed his guilt and has also stated that he
has concealed the dead body of the deceased in half-constructed
house with the help of his associates and the same was recovered
on his disclosure. Learned counsel has submitted that only the
material against him is his confessional statement and that save
and except, his confession, there is nothing against him. A
statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the
petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is
languishing in judicial custody since 15.07.2025.
5. Learned counsel has further relied on a judgement of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of
Bihar reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 119 wherein in para-
21 of the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which is
being reproduced hereunder for reference:-
21. Section 27 applies only to information received
from a person accused of an offence in the custody
of a police officer. Now, the Sub-Inspector stated he
arrested the appellant after he gave the first
information report leading to the discovery. Prima
facie, therefore, the appellant was not in the custody
of a police officer when he gave the report, unless it
can be said that he was then in constructive custody.
On the question whether a person 21. Section 27
applies only to information received from a person
accused of an offence in the custody of a police
officer. Now, the Sub-Inspector stated he arrested
the appellant after he gave the first information
report leading to the discovery. Prima facie,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89893 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
therefore, the appellant was not in the custody of a
police officer when he gave the report, unless it can
be said that he was then in constructive custody. On
the question whether a person directly giving to
police officer information which may be used as
evidence against him may be deemed to have
submitted himself to the custody of the police officer
within the meaning of S. 27, there is conflict of
opinion. See the observations of Shah, J. and Subba
Rao, J. in (1961) 1 SCR 14: (AIR 1960 SC 1125).
For the purposes of the case, we shall assume that
the appellant was constructively in police custody
and therefore, the information contained in the first
information report leading to the discovery of the
dead bodies and the tangi is admissible in evidence.
The entire evidence against the appellant then
consists of the fact that the appellant gave
information as to the place where the dead bodies
were lying and as to the place where he concealed
the tangi, the discovery of the dead bodies and the
tangi in consequence of the information, the
discovery of a blood-stained chadar from the
appellant's house and the fact that he had gone to
Dungi Jharan Hills on the morning of August 11,
1963. This evidence is not sufficient to convict the
appellant of the offences under S. 302 of the Indian
Penal Code.
6. From perusal of the para-21 of the above judgement, it is
clear that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act applies only to
information receives from a person accused of an offence in the
custody of the police and from para-20 of this case diary, it is
clear that at the time of giving his confessional statement, the
petitioner was in custody and he has given his confessional
statement before police in police custody and on his disclosure,
the body of the deceased was discovered. The argument of the
learned counsel that the disclosure made by the petitioner in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89893 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
police custody will not come in the ambit of Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act and that the confession made before police
leading to discovery cannot be treated as a legal material against
the petitioner, has got no force.
7. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by
learned APP for the State. He has stated that the dead body of the
deceased was recovered on the disclosure made by the petitioner.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as stated
above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at
this stage, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
9. However, the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail if any new circumstance favouring him appears
during trial.
10. This bail application stands dismissed.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
shubham/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 16.03.2026
Uploading Date 25.03.2026
Transmission Date 25.03.2026
Checking your session…