Patna High Court
Suhel Ansari @ Raja @ Md. Suhel AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing the petitioner to furnish bail bonds and comply with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Suhel Ansari, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 87 of the BNS, 2023, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the alleged abduction of the informant's daughter. The informant claimed the petitioner enticed and took his daughter away, while the petitioner asserted that the relationship was consensual, they eloped to Calcutta and Delhi, and later returned to Gaya. The victim's statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS was described as ambiguous and possibly made under parental pressure, leading the petitioner to argue it does not conclusively support the prosecution. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the petitioner's contentions regarding the statement's unreliability. The court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with a provision for cancellation if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 87 of the BNS, 2023 based on the facts presented.
- Whether the victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS is reliable enough to sustain the prosecution's case.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS are appropriate for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- victim statement
- Section 87 BNS
- Section 182 BNSS
- Section 482(2) BNSS
- criminal procedure
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2642 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-303 Year-2025 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Suhel Ansari @ Raja @ Md. Suhel Ansari S/O Sajid Ansari R/O Village-
Charokharigarh, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gayaji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Asgher Najmi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Anita Kumari, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Kumar Rishikesh, Advocate
Mr. Chanchal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 30-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 87 of the BNS, 2023.
3. The Investigating Officer of the case, in
compliance of the order dated 27.04.2026, is present in the
Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that petitioner on 28.04.2025 enticed his daughter and
took her away, accordingly, informant came to the house of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2642 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
2/5
petitioner when family members of petitioner said that the
victim will be returned within an hour or two, but the victim
has not returned.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant, who is father of the victim. It is next submitted that
petitioner and the victim were in a relationship and they
eloped and went to Calcutta and from there to Delhi and the
moment the petitioner came to know about the institution of
the instant case, he brought the victim back to Gaya. It is
further submitted that statement of the victim is recorded
under Section 183 BNSS, but then from perusal of the same, it
would manifest that the statement is confusing, it is submitted
that on reading the statement of the victim recorded under
Section BNSS, at times it appears that she is not supporting
the case of the prosecution and at times it appears that she is
supporting the case of the prosecution, but then it is submitted
that the statement was recorded under parental pressure, as
such, the victim made an endeavour to save the petitioner by
recording her statement in a manner which can be read both
ways. It is next submitted that victim in her statement recorded
under Sections 183 BNSS has stated that she left the house on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2642 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
3/5
20.04.2025 and accompanied the petitioner to Calcutta where
they stayed for 10-12 days and from there they went to Delhi
and in Calcutta, the petitioner performed Nikah, but then in the
latter part, it is stated that she was forcefully taken by the
petitioner to Calcutta and from there to Delhi and the marriage
was performed forcefully, further when she threatened the
petitioner that she will commit suicide, the petitioner brought
her to Gaya. The learned counsel for the petitioner, thus,
submits that the victim does not state that she was abducted by
the petitioner and thereafter she was taken to Calcutta and
from there to Delhi. It is also submitted that victim also does
not state that at Calcutta and at Delhi, the petitioner
misbehaved with her, it is thus submitted that the relationship
was consensual and victim is a major. It is also submitted that
the victim herself has disclosed that she accompanied
petitioner to Calcutta and from there to Delhi, but then the
victim never made any endeavours to raise alarm either at the
places where they were staying or on the way to Delhi from
Calcutta. It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory
bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond rather will
cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2642 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
4/5
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, but then are not
in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it
does not appear with certainty that she is supporting the case
of the prosecution nor she raised any alarm either at Calcutta
or Delhi.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks, is directed to be
released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court where the case is pending/successor Court
in connection with Fatehpur P. S. Case No. 303 of 2025,
subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of
the BNSS.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite
giving assurance to this Court is not co-operating in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2642 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
5/5
investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned Trial Court.
10. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
11. The personal appearance of the Investigating
Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…