Saddam Husain v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55561 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-631 Year-2015 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Saddam Husain S/O Md. Abid R/O Vill- Rampur Khurd, P.S- Pupri, Distt.- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Md. Saeem S/O Late Md. Jaldin R/O Mehsaul Gote, P.S.-And DistrictSitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 26-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 631 of 2015 instituted for the offences under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 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 03.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84451 of 2024 taking into account the nature of offence and specific allegation against the petitioner.

4.

In compliance of the order dated 10.09.2025, a report dated 19.09.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55561 of 2025(4) dt.26-09-2025 2/2 has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 03.06.2025 and the case is pending for prosecution evidence. It is further reported that out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined in this case. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.09.2024 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. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of five months, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T