Kalamuddin Ansari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6607 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-591 Year-2024 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Kalamuddin Ansari S/o- Shakur Ansari @ Sakur Ansari R/v- W.No-3, Patila Ps- Kandi Patila Dist- Garhwa, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Allama Abdul Quadir Jamal Faridi, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mohaniya P.S. Case No.591 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to which later on Sections 103, 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was added.
3. One Sangita Kumari, the petitioner and Bhim Yadav are said to have killed the deceased after entering into a conspiracy. The name of the petitioner has also come in the self inculpatory statement of Sangita Kumari. The petitioner has been seen in the CCTV footage taking away the deceased and thereafter, materials have come that he along with the accused persons has killed the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6607 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026 2/2
4. The petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2025.
5. In the trial, three out of six witnesses have already been examined.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that the trial has started, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T