Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24971/2026dismissed

Sahadat Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-01Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24971 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2024 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Sahadat Ansari son of Late Kalamuddin Ansari Resident of Village- Matiyari, Ps- Ramgarh, Dist- Kaimur (Bhabua) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 382 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 64(i), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42200 of 2025.

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of committing rape with the victim. The wife of the petitioner has also participated in the crime.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that in the trial, out of seven witnesses, three witnesses

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24971 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026 2/2 have been examined. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the doctor in his deposition has said that the there is no sign of rape.

6. Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that the trial has already begun and in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3539, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. The Superintendent of Police, Kaimur is directed to ensure the attendance of the other witnesses including the informant as it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant, after having got married, is not interested in prosecuting the case.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent Police, Kaimur through FAX or e-mail for its compliance.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T