Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29609/2026dismissed

Md. Jannat v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-07Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29609 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-324 Year-2024 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Md. Jannat son of Md. Sakur Resident of village- Gadaha , (Ghatha), Govindpur, Ward No 9, P.s.- Pratapganj, District -Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 324 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 140(3), 140(1) and 3(5) of B.N.S.S. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37057 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 324 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 140(3), 140(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons have conspired together and have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29609 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/3 kidnapped her husband and killed him. During investigation, the motorcycle has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of the motorcycle will not fasten any criminal liability upon the petitioner until and unless there is some material to connect the petitioner with crime. He has also submitted that one co-accused has been granted privilege of bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc No. 32891 of 2025. The petitioner is in custody since 27.09.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is involved in the crime and the motorcycle of the deceased has been recovered from him, hence, he does not deserve bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that motorcycle has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

8. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charges have been framed but till now only one witness has been examined.

4. Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that trial has started, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29609 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 3/3 order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again with direction to the concerned court below to expedite the trial. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T