Patna High Court
Tabarak Ansari @ Md. Tabarak AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail, directing his release upon arrest or surrender with a bail bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Tabarak Ansari, was implicated in a complaint (Case No. 1668 of 2004) alleging arson under Section 436 of the IPC, with the alleged incident occurring on 15 June 2004 but the complaint filed only on 25 August 2024. He learned of the case on 28 November 2025 and was served with a non‑bailable warrant, after which his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the District Court on 20 February 2026. The petitioner sought pre‑arrest bail, contending that he had no direct allegation against him, was unaware of the case for a long period, and that the delay in filing the complaint negated any apprehension of arrest. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence and the existence of a warrant. The High Court examined the delay, the lack of specific allegation, and the prima facie case for bail, and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to pre‑arrest bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered his release on bail upon arrest or surrender, subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and compliance with Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the long delay between the alleged offence and the filing of the complaint.
- Whether the absence of a direct allegation against the petitioner under Section 436 IPC warrants the grant of pre‑arrest bail.
- Whether the conditions of Section 482(2) of the CrPC justify the release of the petitioner on bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 436
Subjects
- arson
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 436 IPC
- delay in complaint
- non‑bailable warrant
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25417 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1668 Year-2004 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
Tabarak Ansari @ Md. Tabarak Ansari, aged about 46 years, Male, Son of
Salim Ansari, Resident of village- Ganeshpur, P.S.- Kesariya, Dist- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Idrish Ansari Son of late Nubzan Miyan Resident of village- Ganeshpur Ps-
Kesariya, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priyesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. Priyesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar
Roy, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 1668 of 2004 (Tr. No. 479 of 2024)
registered for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner
along with other co-accused persons, had allegedly set the house
of the complainant on fire.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely
been implicated in the present case. The date of incidence is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25417 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
15.06.2004 and the complaint was registered on 25.08.2024.
The petitioner had no knowledge of the complaint case and he
could only be informed on 28.11.2025 and there was no
apprehension of being arrested. The petitioner, after service of
non bailable warrant, had moved before the learned District
Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected vide
order dated 20.02.2026 on merits. Learned counsel further
submitted that the complainant and petitioner are co-villager and
there is no direct allegation against the petitioner that he is the
one, who had set the house of the complainant on fire. On these
grounds, petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, the fact that the date of incidence is
15.06.2004 and the complaint was registered on 25.08.2024.
The petitioner had no knowledge of the complaint case and he
could only be informed on 28.11.2025 and there was no
apprehension of being arrested. The petitioner, after service of
non bailable warrant, had moved before the learned District
Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected vide
order dated 20.02.2026 on merits. The complainant and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25417 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
petitioner are co-villager and there is no direct allegation against
the petitioner that he is the one, who had set the house of the
complainant on fire. Considering the general and omnibus
allegation, I am of the opinion that petitioner has, prima facie,
made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his/her arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court where the
case is pending, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1668 of
2004 (Tr. No. 479 of 2024), subject to the condition as laid
down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…