Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28543/2026bail rejected

Jamal Ahmad @ Dablu v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-17Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28543 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2023 Thana- HUSSAINGANJ District- Siwan ====================================================== Jamal Ahmad @ Dablu Son of Late Shabir Ahmed Resident Of Village - Jalapur Hasanpur, Ps- Hussainganj (M.H. Nagar), Dist- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate Ms. Ritika Kumari, Advocate Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Hussainganj (MH Nagar) P.S. Case No. 33 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier, vide orders dated 12.03.2024 & 19.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 62282 of 2023 & Cr. Misc. No. 6332 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected twice by this Court considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

4. In compliance of the order dated 08.05.2026 a report dated 18.05.2026, with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the report, it appears that all

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28543 of 2026(3) dt.17-07-2026 2/2 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial has remained stayed pursuant to the order of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. No. 654 of 2026. The court below has reported that the trial is expected to be concluded within one month from receipt of the directions of this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.04.2023 without any rhymes or reason and he has one criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T