Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55288/2025bail rejected

Md. Simran @ Raju v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-09Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55288 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2023 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== Md. Simran @ Raju Son of Md. Samaher @ Md. Shamser @ Mohammad Samsher Khan @ Shamser Khan R/O Village- Bakarpur, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhukar Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2025 arising out of Muffasil (Munger) P.S. Case No. 353 of 2023 lodged on 13.10.2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-AA)/25(1-b)a/26(ii) (iii) and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Munger.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55288 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026 2/3 twice vide order dated 04.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23864 of 2024 & vide order dated 05.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 71971 of 2024. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2023, having clean antecedent. Counsel submits that after issuance of show cause to the S.P., Munger by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2025, only three witnesses were examined, and prior to that, not a single witness was examined. He further submits that the petitioner has unnecessarily been kept in the custody. Counsel submits that a fresh/current report with regard to the present stage of trial was called for vide order dated 12.12.2025 and according to him, still, three witnesses, have been examined.

4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner and other accused persons themselves have taken steps to delay the trial, as one of the accused has filed a discharge petition and in the name of discharge, the trial has been lingered.

5. From the record, it transpires that huge quantity of articles which are being used for preparation of arms, have been recovered from the petitioner's possession in this case and by virtue of filing discharge petition, the delay in the trial has been caused intentionally.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55288 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026 3/3

6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T