Md. Rajul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88622 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2024 Thana- Bathnaha District- Araria ====================================================== Md. Rajul S/o- Md. Sulaiman @ Gulpa Village- Fena Behali Ward No- 19 Bathnaha, PS-Bathnaha District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

X W/o Y Village- Fena Behali Ward No- 12 Bathnaha, PS-Bathnaha DistrictAraria ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vivekanand Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-02-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 65 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 2.

The learned APP, at the outset, submits that petitioner was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated 1-10-2024 in Cr. Misc no. 60768 of 2024 with a condition that if charge-sheet is submitted connecting the petitioner with the offence, in that event, the anticipatory bail order shall lose its effect. The learned APP next submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88622 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026 2/2 charge-sheet has been submitted as such the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner earlier loses its effect in terms of the order dated 1-10-2024 in Cr. Misc no. 60768 of 2024. It is also submitted that petitioner now should surrender and seek regular bail.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned APP.

4.

Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to entertain the second anticipatory bail application.

5.

Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T