Md Ataul @ Md Atabul Ali @ Md Atabul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67294 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2024 Thana- THAKURGANJ District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Md Ataul @ Md Atabul Ali @ Md Atabul Son of Abdul Kalam @ Md Kalam R/o Village - Bherbheri, Kanakpur Panchayat, P.S. - Thakurganj, District - Kishanganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Thakurganj P.S. Case No. 109 of 2024 (Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2025) instituted for the offences under Sections 127, 115(2), 69 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 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 on merit by this Court vide order dated 28-04-2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4577 of 2025. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 15-10-2024 without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel next submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67294 of 2025(2) dt.16-09-2025 2/2 that charge in this case is framed and no witness is examined till date, which is evident from bare perusal of the impugned order itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner goes on to submit that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

6.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner, which is already decided by this Court on merit.

7.

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 and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T