Hasim @ Md. Hasim v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27097 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2025 Thana- MAHALGAON District- Araria ====================================================== Hasim @ Md. Hasim S/O Imamuddin @ Md. Imam Ali R/O Village - Chaukta, Ward NO.11, , P.S.- Mahalgaon, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahalgaon P.S. Case No. 66 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 103(1), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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 30.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 57622 of 2025 taking into consideration the direct allegation of giving farsa blow upon the brother of the informant by the petitioner.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 03.07.2026, a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27097 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 report dated 10.07.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that out of six charge-sheeted witnesses, three witnesses have been examined in this case.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.04.2025 without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on and is at an advance stage. 8.

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 three months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three 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