Md. Mustak @ Md. Mustaq @ Md. Mustakh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17836 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2024 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Md. Mustak @ Md. Mustaq @ Md. Mustakh S/o Md. Yunus Resident of Ward No. 3, Village- Rahika, Insaf Chowk, P.S.- Rahika, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rampravesh Nath Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 34, 307, 452, 427, 147 354B of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44268 of 2025 taking into consideration the specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 13.09.2024 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17836 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026 2/2 antecedent. It is next submitted that charge has already been framed against the petitioner on 11.03.2025. It is further submitted that out of eight charge-sheeted witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined in this case.
5.
Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the trial is in progress and out of eight charge-sheeted witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined in this case. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.
6.
There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. It appears that the trial is going on. 7.
In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of four months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of four months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T