Patna High Court
Md. Nisar @ Md. MikailversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The bail application was rejected.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Nisar, was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a murder case. He applied for bail, having been in custody since 10 November 2023, and had previously sought regular bail which was rejected in June 2024. The State argued that the trial was well underway, with charges framed on 1 August 2024 and 18 of 21 witnesses already examined. The petitioner’s counsel could not rebut the State’s submission regarding the progress of the trial. The High Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail and directed the trial court to complete the trial within four months, thereby rejecting the bail application.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consideration for granting bail in a murder case where a substantial portion of the trial evidence has already been examined?
- Whether the stage of trial and the nature of the offences justify the denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- high court
- criminal miscellaneous
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.903 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-286 Year-2019 Thana- TATARPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Md. Nisar @ Md. Mikail Son of Md. Badal R/o Village - Asanandpur, P.S. -
Tatarpur, Dist. - Bhagalpur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amitabh Rituraj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Tatarpur P.S. Case No. 286 of 2019, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petition has antecedent of three cases and is in custody since
10.11.2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.903 of 2026(3) dt.11-05-2026
2/3
4. At this stage, the learned APP submits that
petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking regular bail by
filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19765 of 2024 and the same
came to be rejected by an order dated 21.06.2024. It is further
submitted that by order dated 10.04.2026, a report was called
for from the learned Trial Court with regard to the stage of the
case and from perusal of the report contained in Letter No. 119
dated 18.04.2026, it would manifest that the same records that
charges were framed on 01.08.2024 and out of 21 witnesses 17
witnesses have been examined and one witness who was not a
charge-sheet witness was also examined, as such, total 18
witnesses have been examined and the last witness was
examined on 18.12.2024 and next date fixed in the case was
02.05.2026.
5. It is further submitted by the learned APP that the
case is of murder.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is not in a position to rebut the said submission of the
learned APP for the State.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
8. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.903 of 2026(3) dt.11-05-2026
3/3
conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date
of receipt/production of a copy of this order, since out of 21
witnesses, 18 witnesses have already been examined.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.