A Patna Sessions court granted interim protection from arrest to educator Khan Sir (Faisal Khan) in a case linked to a firing incident at his coaching institute. While permitting investigators to continue questioning him, the court barred any coercive action, including arrest, during the protection period.
The Sessions Court, Patna granted interim protection from arrest to educator Faisal Khan, widely known as Khan Sir, in connection with a criminal case arising from a firing incident at his coaching institute Khan Global Studies (KGS) in Patna earlier this month. The relief provides temporary protection against any coercive action while the investigation into the matter continues.
The order was passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 2461 of 2026 in connection with Kadamkuan Police Station Case No. 418 of 2026.
The interim order was passed during the hearing of Khan Sir’s anticipatory bail application No. 2461 of 2026 in connection with Kadamkuan Police Station Case No. 418 of 2026 before the Sessions Court. While extending protection, the court made it clear that the investigating agency would remain free to question him and carry out the probe in accordance with law. However, no coercive measures, including arrest, can be taken against him during the period of interim protection.
The development comes amid an ongoing investigation into a violent episode that occurred at Khan Global Studies (KGS), one of Patna’s most prominent coaching institutes. The incident has attracted considerable public attention due to the involvement of the popular educator and the competing narratives surrounding the events.
During previous hearings, the court had directed the police to place the case diary and other materials collected during the investigation on record. After considering the submissions advanced on behalf of Khan Sir and reviewing the available material, the court granted him interim relief from arrest.
The court also reserved its decision on the anticipatory bail plea filed by Roshan Anand, another accused named in the case. The matter is expected to be taken up again after further consideration of the evidence and investigation records.
The case has attracted widespread public attention due to Khan Sir’s prominence as an educator and social media personality, as well as the serious allegations involving the alleged firing of licensed weapons by security guards associated with his coaching institute. While the police claim that the firing took place on the instructions of Khan Sir and another unidentified individual, the defence has strongly disputed the allegations, arguing that the accusations are based solely on the statements of co-accused persons and that the incident must be viewed in the backdrop of an alleged attack on the coaching institute.
The Sessions Court has not yet decided the anticipatory bail application on merits. However, after considering the allegations and rival submissions, it granted interim protection from arrest and directed the investigating authorities to produce the case diary and details of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Background of the Case
The case traces its origins to an incident that allegedly took place outside Khan Global Studies in Patna on the night of June 2, 2026. According to the prosecution, a crowd gathered outside the coaching institute and a disturbance occurred in the vicinity. Subsequently, videos began circulating on social media allegedly showing two security guards firing rifles in public.
The circulation of these videos prompted the police to verify their authenticity and identify the individuals involved. On June 4, 2026, a police team from Kadamkuan Police Station was deputed to investigate the viral footage. The police reached the area near Khan Global Studies and made inquiries with local residents.
According to the prosecution, the individuals seen in the video were identified as private security guards employed at the academy. The police thereafter contacted Khan Sir, who reportedly informed them that the guards had been engaged through APS Security Agency and were not immediately available but would be called. Later the same day, the two guards appeared before the police carrying their rifles and the corresponding firearm licences.
The core allegation against Khan Sir stems from statements allegedly made by the two security guards during police interrogation. According to the prosecution version, the guards stated that a group of persons had gathered outside the academy and allegedly assaulted another security guard, creating panic among students and staff members.
The prosecution alleges that upon learning about the disturbance, Khan Sir and members of his staff came outside and observed the situation. The guards allegedly informed the police that Khan Sir and another unidentified individual instructed them to fire their weapons in order to disperse the crowd. Acting upon those instructions, the guards allegedly fired two rounds each from their rifles.
Based on these allegations, the police registered an FIR invoking Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, dealing with abetment of offences, along with Sections 25(9), 27, and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959. The police further alleged that the firing took place in a public place and was capable of causing panic among members of the public.
The two security guards, identified as Pradeep Kumar and Talebar Singh, allegedly produced their rifles before the police. The police seized a .315 bore rifle bearing UIN No. 6260049242014 and another .315 bore rifle bearing UIN No. 330980008351602015.
According to the prosecution, both rifles contained live cartridges when inspected by the investigating team. The guards were arrested and their weapons were seized as part of the investigation. Subsequently, legal proceedings were initiated not only against the guards but also against Khan Sir and other unknown persons allegedly involved in directing or facilitating the firing.
Arguments Before the Court
Defence: The defence mounted a multi-layered challenge to the prosecution’s allegations. The primary submission was that even if the allegations contained in the FIR were accepted at face value, the only accusation against Khan Sir was that he allegedly instructed the guards to fire.
The defence argued that the viral video itself showed the guards firing into the air rather than targeting any individual. According to the petitioner, had there been any intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, the weapons could have been aimed directly at members of the crowd.
This aspect, it was argued, demonstrated that the act was intended merely to disperse the gathering and protect students and staff members from a threatening situation. The defence also pointed out that a separate criminal case, Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 410 of 2026, had already been registered at the instance of the coaching institute’s manager regarding the alleged attack on the academy.
The existence of this earlier case, according to the petitioner, supported the argument that the firing occurred in a context of self-defence and public safety rather than criminal intent.
A major legal argument advanced on behalf of Khan Sir concerned the evidentiary value of the statements made by the co-accused security guards. The defence argued that the entire allegation against the petitioner rested solely on disclosure statements allegedly made by co-accused persons while in police custody.
Such statements, the defence contended, are generally inadmissible in evidence unless they lead to the discovery of a new fact as contemplated under the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner therefore argued that the prosecution lacked any independent material directly connecting him to the alleged firing. This submission sought to persuade the court that custodial interrogation of Khan Sir was unnecessary because the prosecution case was based on legally questionable material.
The petitioner further claimed that he had been falsely implicated due to commercial rivalry. According to the defence, one Roshan Anand, who operates Gyan Bindu Coaching, had a business dispute with Khan Sir and was instrumental in creating circumstances leading to the present case.
While the order does not record any judicial finding on this allegation, the submission formed part of the defence strategy to challenge the credibility of the accusations. The argument sought to present the dispute as part of a broader conflict between competing educational institutions rather than a straightforward criminal incident.
The defence also challenged the applicability of the Arms Act provisions invoked in the FIR. It was argued that Section 25(9) of the Arms Act is itself a bailable offence.
The petitioner further contended that Sections 27 and 35 of the Arms Act were not attracted because the firearms involved were duly licensed weapons. The defence emphasized that the weapons were lawfully possessed and were voluntarily produced before the police along with valid licences.
Importantly, the petitioner argued that the guards were not directly employed by him. Instead, they had been provided by APS Security Agency, a private security company based in Noida. Consequently, any alleged misuse of the firearms by the guards could not automatically be attributed to Khan Sir.
Prosecution’s Opposition : The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The prosecution relied heavily on the confessional statement of co-accused Pradeep Kumar.
The State further argued that one of the firearms had originally been licensed for personal protection purposes following the murder of the license holder’s father in 2011. According to the prosecution, the weapon was allegedly being used for professional security services, thereby raising concerns regarding misuse of the licence. The prosecution therefore urged the court not to extend pre-arrest protection to the petitioner.
Rebuttal by the Defence: Responding to the State’s submissions, the defence reiterated that the guards had been engaged through a licensed security agency and not directly by Khan Sir. The petitioner argued that even if there was some irregularity in the use of the licensed weapons, liability could not automatically be fastened upon him.
The defence also maintained that the police had not produced any material establishing misuse of the weapons. The mere fact that licensed firearms were used, according to the petitioner, was insufficient to invoke serious penal consequences against him.
Analysis of the Court’s Approach
A notable aspect of the order is that the court refrained from making any definitive finding regarding the truthfulness of either side’s claims. Instead, the court adopted a cautious approach.
Recognizing that the investigation was still underway and that the case diary had not yet been produced, the court considered it appropriate to seek additional material before deciding the anticipatory bail application on merits.
The court specifically directed:
“For a better appreciation of this anticipatory bail petition, office is directed to call for case diary along with criminal antecedent of accused petitioner from I.O of the case.”
This observation demonstrates that the court was unwilling to adjudicate the matter solely on the basis of competing oral submissions. Instead, it sought to examine the investigative record before arriving at any final conclusion.
While reserving a final determination, the court considered the immediate request for protection against arrest. After evaluating the nature of the accusations and the submissions advanced by both sides, the Sessions Court granted interim relief.
The court observed:
“Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case; nature of accusation levelled against the petitioner; and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties; interim protection from arrest is granted to the above-named petitioner till next date in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 418 of 2026.”
The court did not hold that the allegations were false. Nor did it conclude that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail as a matter of right. Rather, it found that the circumstances warranted temporary protection until a fuller examination of the case could be undertaken.
The protection granted by the court was not unconditional. Recognizing the importance of an effective investigation, the court simultaneously directed the petitioner to cooperate with investigating authorities.
The order specifically states:
“However, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall make himself available as and when required by the police.”
With conflicting claims being made by both sides, investigators are currently examining forensic evidence, witness statements, electronic records and other materials connected with the case. The outcome of the forensic analysis of the seized weapons is expected to play a significant role in determining the sequence of events and identifying individual responsibility.
The grant of interim protection does not amount to a finding on the merits of the allegations against Khan Sir. Rather, it ensures that he will not face arrest while the court continues to consider his anticipatory bail plea and while the investigation remains underway.
As the probe proceeds, authorities are expected to scrutinise the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack, the subsequent firing incident and the competing claims regarding who was responsible for the violence at the coaching institute. The case continues to be under active investigation, with further developments likely to emerge as evidence is examined and additional witnesses are questioned.
The final outcome of the anticipatory bail application will depend upon the material contained in the case diary, the evidence gathered by the police, and the court’s assessment of whether custodial interrogation is necessary. Until then, Khan Sir remains protected from arrest, subject to his continued cooperation with the investigation, with the matter scheduled to be taken up again on June 20, 2026.
Case Title: Khan Sir @ Faisal Khan Vs State of Bihar
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE