Abdullah @ Abdullah Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83526 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2024 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Abdullah @ Abdullah Ansari S/O Md. Idrish @ Idrish Ansari @ Idris Ansari R/O Village- Konhiya Tola Barkurwa, P.S- Chakia, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2025, arising out of Chakia P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 303(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Subsequently, Section 103(1) of the BNS was added.

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 16.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17875 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court, taking

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83526 of 2025(2) dt.28-11-2025 2/2 into account the direct allegation against the petitioner. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 09.09.2024, having no criminal antecedent. It is submitted that charge in this case is framed on 28.04.2025 and no witness is examined hitherto, hence, there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future.

6.

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

7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner which is already decided by this Court on merit. 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 five months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of five 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