Md Kadir Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69027 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2023 Thana- BARURAJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Md Kadir Ansari S/o Late Md Muslim Ansari R/o Vill- Parsauni, P.S- Baruraj, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shubhankar Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 and 13 of UAP Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of hatching criminal conspiracy to disrupt communal harmony and also to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. The petitioner along with others is engaged in recruiting new members strengthening the prohibited organization PFI and also provide training to expand the activity of the organization.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69027 of 2024(6) dt.17-03-2025 2/2 He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He was neither apprehended on the spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that charge has not been framed as yet. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 21.09.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the nature of the allegation levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T