Patna High Court
MD. ARMANversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The bail application is not maintainable as the one‑year period after framing of charge has not yet elapsed.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Arman, was arrested on 29 April 2022 in connection with a case under IPC sections 395, 412 and 120B. The charge was framed on 1 November 2025, and the petitioner applied for regular bail on 9 February 2026. The earlier bail application had been rejected on 8 May 2024 with liberty to renew the prayer one year after the charge was framed. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the one‑year period after framing of charge had not yet elapsed, which would be on 1 November 2026. The Court examined the earlier order and the statutory requirement, and held that the bail application was premature. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application, directing that the petitioner remain in custody until the one‑year period is completed.
Issues considered
- Whether a bail application filed before the expiry of one year from the date of framing of charge under Sections 395, 412 and 120B of the IPC is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 395, 412
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- charge framing
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64008 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2021 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Md. Arman S/O Latif Mian @ Md. Latif R/O Vill - Keshopur, P.S.- Sakra,
Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandra Shekhar Anand, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
5 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
S.Tr. No.392 of 2023, arising out of Tajpur P.S. Case No.194 of
2021 lodged under Sections 395 of the I.P.C. and further added
412 & 120B of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected vide
order dated 08.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11068 of 2024
with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail one
year after framing of charge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2022 and charge has
already been framed on 01.11.2025 against the petitioner and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64008 of 2025(5) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
report of the progress of the trial has been called for.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
for bail and progress of the trial has been called for. From the
progress report, it transpires that charge has been framed and
one year has not been crossed. Therefore, one year shall be
crossed only on 01.11.2026. As such, the bail application is not
maintainable at all.
6. Upon hearing the parties and perusal of the record,
it transpires to this Court that the earlier bail application of the
petitioner has been rejected with the following observations
which is stated below:-
“In this background, this Court is not inclined
to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for
bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, liberty is
granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for
bail one year after framing of charge, if not frame.”
7. According to the observations, one year shall be
crossed only on 01.11.2026. In this background, this Court is
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail
application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
prakashmani/-
U
Checking your session…