Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25668 (PAT)

Md. Majid Alam v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./8870/2026 · 2026-07-20

Sandeep Kumar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8870 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2025 Thana- PAHARKATTA District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Md. Majid Alam S/O Mohiuddin R/O Gram Khajurbari, P/O- Khatia Pichala, Ward no.-1, Sitalpur, P.S-Paharkatta, District- Kishanganj, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Manglu@ Satbir Rahman @ Satibur Rahman S/O Late Tangur R/O - village Khajurbari, P.S Paharkatta, District- Kishanganj, Bihar 3. Muzzamil S/O Satbir Rehman @ Satibur Rahman R/O village- Khajurbari, P.S.- Paharkatta, District- Kishanganj, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Rachna Rani, Advocate For the State : Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, APP For the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3: Mr.Ram Praveen, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 20-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite parties and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The present application has been filed seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to Opposite Parties vide order dated 04.12.2025 passed in B.P. No. 375/2025 arising out of Paharkatta P.S. Case No. 117 of 2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 74, 352, 351(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the opposite parties are alleged to have assaulted the petitioner and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8870 of 2026(5) dt.20-07-2026 2/2 his family members. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the case on merits but has failed to make out a case warranting cancellation of bail of the opposite parties, hence, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order passed by the court below. 5. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. tusharika/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T