Patna High Court
Naima KhatunversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient direct evidence to justify denial of bail.
Summary
Naima Khatun applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a kidnapping case (PS Case No. 65 of 2025) where she was alleged to have aided in the abduction of a minor girl, Shikha Kumari. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s mother cooperated in the kidnapping, while the petitioner contended that she was merely the mother of the boy, Md. Vasim, who married the victim consensually under personal law and that she had no role in the alleged crime. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita did not name the petitioner. The court examined the lack of direct incriminating evidence against her and, despite the prosecution’s opposition, decided to grant anticipatory bail with standard conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bail order required a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions such as regular court appearances and non‑interference with witnesses. The petition was therefore disposed in favour of the petitioner, granting anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the allegations of kidnapping and alleged involvement of her mother.
- Whether the absence of the petitioner’s name in the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS is sufficient to justify anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 183, 3(5), 96
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- false implication
- personal law marriage
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84221 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2025 Thana- JHANJHARPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Naima Khatun W/O Md. Tahir Ansari @ Tahir Ansari R/O Village -
Machhadhi, P.S- Jhanjharpur,Dist- Madhubani (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hriday Narayan Harshit
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 65 of 2025, F.I.R
dated 13.04.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, one Kamlesh Saday
had submitted a written application to the S.H.O., Jhanjharpur,
alleging that his minor daughter, Shikha Kumari, an
Intermediate student, had been living at her maternal home and
studying at Lomens College. On 08.04.2025, she went to
college but did not return. The informant searched for her at
relatives’ houses but could not locate her. Subsequently, on
12.04.2025, he came to know that the petitioner had allegedly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84221 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
kidnapped his daughter, and it was further alleged that the
petitioner’s mother had also cooperated in the said occurrence.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
mother of Md. Vasim @ Vasim Ahamad who is said to have
been married with the victim girl Shikha Kumari and without
there being any complicity of this petitioner in the said offence,
she has falsely been implicated while Shikha Kumari and Md.
Vasim @ Vasim Ahamad are said to be in love and they got
married as per the personal law. Learned counsel for the
petitioner by referring to the statement recorded under Section
183 of BNSS submits that the victim has herself stated that she
was in love with co-accused Md. Vasim @ Vasim Ahamad and
she wanted to marry him, but the family members of her was
not agreeable to the same. Therefore, she came out of her house
in the name of going to the college and met with Md. Vasim @
Vasim Ahamad and went to Maharastra and there both of them
got married as per the personal law and has outrightly rejected
the complicity of any other person in the said incident.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts that petitioner has
not been named by the victim in her statement recorded under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84221 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
Section 183 of BNSS. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to
grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jhangharpur, District - Madhubani in connection with
Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 65 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84221 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…