Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10774/2026bail granted

Md. Najam @ Md. Nazam v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-23Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10774 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2023 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Md. Najam @ Md. Nazam Son of Md. Khalil @ Sekh Khalil Resident of Village- Pirpainti Bazar, P.S.- Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 156 of 2023, instituted for the offence under Sections 304(B) and 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier, on two occasions, vide order dated 20.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23929 and vide order dated 14.11.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 64425 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the material available on the record, with a liberty to renew the prayer after one month, if the trial is not concluded.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present one is the third attempt for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. It is mainly submitted that charge in this case is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10774 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026 2/3 framed and till date trial has not been concluded. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 15.05.2023. Learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. Learned counsel goes on to submit that the continued incarceration of the petitioner without conclusion of trial amounts to a gross violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody of the petitioner and taking into account the fact that continued detention of the petitioner would serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial incarceration, which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Pirpainti P.S.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10774 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026 3/3 Case No. 156 of 2023, subject to the following conditions: (I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioner.

(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T