Md. Yusuf Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66526 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2024 Thana- DUMARIYA District- Gaya ====================================================== Md. Yusuf Ansari S/o Dil Mohammad Miyan R/o Village - Chhota Pankara, P.S - Dumariya, District - Gaya, Bihar ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Md. Rafique Miyan @ Md. Rafique Ansari S/o Dil Mohammad Miyan R/o Village - Chhota Pankara, P.S - Dumariya, District - Gaya, Bihar (Accused) ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Md Jubair Ansari, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP For the Opp. Party No.2 :

Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Rinki Kumari, Advocate Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2.

This application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.87079 of 2024, in connection with Dumariya P.S. Case No.55 of 2024 registered for the offence under sections 109, 115(2), 118 and 126 of the B.N.S., 2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66526 of 2025(3) dt.16-07-2026 2/3 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 on the ground that the injury report was suppressed by the opposite party no.2.

4.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that at the time of passing of impugned order the injury report was there and after considering the same, the bail was granted to the opposite party no.2 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order.

5.

I have considered the submissions of the parties. This Court is not inclined to go into the disputed questions of fact after more than one and half years of granting bail to the opposite party no.2 as there is no allegation of tampering with the evidence or threatening the petitioner. 6.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order granting bail to the opposite party no.2. Accordingly, this application is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.

7.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66526 of 2025(3) dt.16-07-2026 3/3 application and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Pawan/ Shalini U