Shajid Ansari @ Sajid Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53696 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-941 Year-2024 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Shajid Ansari @ Sajid Ansari S/o Ajij Ansari Resident of Village- Barhoriya, PO- Dumari Via Tarwan, P.S. - Fatehpur, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mr. Priya Ranjan Mr. Nitish Kumar Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mr. Chandni Kumari Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-10-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Wazirganj P. S. Case No.941 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126, 308(2), 308(3), 352, 351(2), 61(2) of the B.N.S.

3. The learned A.P.P. submits that in compliance of the order dated 20.08.2025, a counter-affidavit is being filed duly sworn by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya. The learned A.P.P. next submits that during the course of investigation, Section 111 of B.N.S. was added which carries

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53696 of 2025(3) dt.07-10-2025 2/2 punishment of more than seven years, hence notice under Section 35 BNSS has not given to the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner has been arrested in a previous case and presently is languishing in judicial custody. The learned A.P.P. thus submits that since petitioner is already in judicial custody and Section 111 of B.N.S. has been added in the FIR after investigating which relates to organized crime whether it would be prudent for the Court to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the allegation in the FIR is of threatening the informant of his murder on account of his interference in Bala Bigha matter.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the submission of the learned A.P.P that petitioner presently is in judicial custody

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T