Md. Najam @ Md. Nazam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64425 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2023 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Md. Najam @ Md. Nazam S/O Md. Khalil @ Sekh Khalil Resident of Village- Pirpainti Bazar, Police Station- Pirpainti, Dist.- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 156 of 2023, Sessions Case No. 779 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 304B, 328, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier vide order dated 20.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23929 of 2024 regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the stage of the trial.

4. In compliance of the order dated 17.10.2025 a report dated 01.11.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that chargesheeted witnesses have already been examined and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64425 of 2025(4) dt.14-11-2025 2/2 the case is running for hearing on the petition of the prosecution for marking exhibit of FSL report. It is further reported that trial is likely to be concluded in the next three months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 15.05.2023 without any rhymes or reason.

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

7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on and is at an advance stage.

8. 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 one months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of one months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T