Patna High CourtCR. MISC./64008/2025bail rejected

Md. Arman v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-09Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64008 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2021 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Md. Arman S/O Latif Mian @ Md. Latif R/O Vill - Keshopur, P.S.- Sakra, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandra Shekhar Anand, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP ====================================================== 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 S.Tr. No.392 of 2023, arising out of Tajpur P.S. Case No.194 of 2021 lodged under Sections 395 of the I.P.C. and further added 412 & 120B of the IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected vide order dated 08.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11068 of 2024 with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail one year after framing of charge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2022 and charge has already been framed on 01.11.2025 against the petitioner and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64008 of 2025(5) dt.09-02-2026 2/2 report of the progress of the trial has been called for.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and progress of the trial has been called for. From the progress report, it transpires that charge has been framed and one year has not been crossed. Therefore, one year shall be crossed only on 01.11.2026. As such, the bail application is not maintainable at all.

6. Upon hearing the parties and perusal of the record, it transpires to this Court that the earlier bail application of the petitioner has been rejected with the following observations which is stated below:- "In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail one year after framing of charge, if not frame."

7. According to the observations, one year shall be crossed only on 01.11.2026. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) prakashmani/- U