Patna High Court
Bibi KhatoonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner on condition of furnishing bond and sureties, with power to cancel if she attempts to delay the trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Bibi Khatoon, was arrested in connection with offences under Sections 126(2), 109 and 61(2) of the BNS, with Section 103(1) later added. The FIR alleges that on 30‑Oct‑2024 she invited her husband to her house where he was assaulted by several accused persons and later died in a Nepal hospital. The petitioner contended that she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and was falsely implicated as the informant did not disclose how she identified the petitioner among the accused or any motive for the crime. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties, subject to the condition that the trial court may cancel the bail if she attempts to delay the framing of charge or the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences under the BNS
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with the trial process
- Whether the FIR provides sufficient basis to deny bail
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 109, 126(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- women's rights
- BNS
- regular bail
- trial court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15302 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2024 Thana- SIKTI District- Araria
======================================================
Bibi Khatoon W/O Md. Yusuf @ Muhamad Yusuf R/O Vill.- Belguri Ward
No. 14, P.S.- Sikty, Dist.- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 109 and 61(2) of the
BNS and subsequently Section 103(1) of the BNS was added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
is in custody since 25.11.2025. It is next submitted that
informant alleges that on 30.10.2024, at 08:30 p.m., petitioner
called her husband and asked him to come to her house where
from before Md. Mosim, Biwi Gulbano, Biwi Nazmiri, Biwi
Robni and Biwi Praveen were present and when her husband
reached the house of the accused persons, the accused persons
twisted the neck of her husband on account of which he became
injured and thereafter he was admitted in a hospital at Nepal in a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15302 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
serious condition where he subsequently died, hence, there was
delay in instituting the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no
motive for the occurrence is alleged. It is next submitted that the
informant does not disclose that on what basis she came to
know that at the house of the petitioner, several accused persons
were present from before. It is also submitted that no doubt, the
postmortem report corroborates the allegation as alleged in the
FIR but then it is reiterated and submitted that informant, in the
FIR, does not disclose that how she came to know that it were
the accused persons including the petitioner who committed the
occurrence. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent and is a woman. It is further
submitted that if the privilege of regular bail is granted to the
petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate
in the trial to prove her innocence as charge-sheet has been
submitted.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15302 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner,
above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court where the case is pending in connection with
Sikty P.S. Case No. 165 of 2024.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned Trial
Court comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after her release on
bail, is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of
charge is trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner, the
learned Trial Court, in both the conditions, shall be at liberty to
cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…