Patna High Court
Afroj Ali NadafversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the trial had substantially progressed and the petitioner had no defence witness to examine.
Summary
The petitioner, Afroj Ali Nadaf, was charged under Sections 64, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 for an alleged rape. He had earlier obtained anticipatory bail, which was conditioned to lapse upon filing of the charge sheet; the charge sheet was filed on 29‑10‑2024 and the anticipatory bail order consequently lost effect. After surrendering on 06‑01‑2026, he applied for regular bail, arguing a clean antecedent and lack of medical corroboration. The prosecution indicated that trial had commenced, six of seven prosecution witnesses had already been examined and only the investigating officer remained to be examined. The court, noting the advanced stage of trial and the absence of any defence witness, refused bail and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a month, if the petitioner had no defence witness.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted after the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has progressed with most prosecution witnesses examined.
- Whether the lapse of anticipatory bail upon filing of the charge sheet bars further bail relief.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence corroborating the rape allegation warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 3(5), 64
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- charge sheet
- trial progression
- prosecution witnesses
- medical evidence
- rape allegation
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10302 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Afroj Ali Nadaf S/o Md. Haidar @ Md. Haidar Ali R/o Village- Belhi, P.S-
Sadar, Dist- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 64, 115(2) and 3(5) of the
BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 06.01.2026 and had earlier moved this Court seeking
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10302 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/3
anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 68790 of
2024 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
03.10.2024 after considering the case on merit and in detail, but
with a condition that anticipatory bail order shall lose its effect,
if charge sheet is submitted. It is next submitted that on
29.10.2024 charge sheet came to be submitted against the
petitioner and thereafter petitioner again moved this Court
seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.
69912 of 2025 and the same was permitted to be withdrawn by
an order dated 23.12.2025, thereafter petitioner surrendered on
06.01.2026. It is submitted that though allegation is of rape, but
then the same is not corroborated by the medical evidence.
4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that charges have been framed,
trial has commenced and out of seven prosecution witnesses, six
prosecution witnesses have been examined and the only
prosecution witness left to be examined is the Investigating
Officer, whose evidence is to be recorded on 07.05.2026.
5. Since trial has commenced and out of seven
prosecution witnesses, six prosecution witnesses have been
examined, as such, the Court is not inclined to release the
petitioner on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10302 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
3/3
6. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to
ensure that trial is concluded within a period of one month from
the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order, if what has
been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant is true and petitioner does not have any defence
witness to be examined.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…