Md. Gulab v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18572 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2024 Thana- SAKRI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Md. Gulab, S/O Late Md. Janif, R/O Vill-Sakri Dafadaar Tola, Ward No.- 12, P.S-Sakri, Distt-Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in connection with Sakri P.S. Case No. 176 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103 and 3(5) of B.N.S.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the bail petition of this petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12607 of 2025 with a liberty that the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has killed his mother. Initially, the petitioner disclosed that the deceased has died due to heart attack but from perusal of the postmortem report, it was found that the deceased has antemortem injury on her neck, so it was not a natural death.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18572 of 2026(3) dt.17-04-2026 2/2

5. A report regarding stage of trial was also called for from the learned trial Court which goes to show that out of seven prosecution witnesses, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 12.11.2024.

7. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the trial will be concluded within six months.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands again rejected.

9. Learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months.

10. Learned counsel for the informant is also directed to cooperate in getting the witnesses examined during trial. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T