Patna High Court
Md. Zahir @ Md. Zahid HussainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Zahir, was accused of offences under Sections 69, 64, 318(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, stemming from a matrimonial dispute in which the informant alleged that the petitioner demanded a Scarpio vehicle as dowry. The prosecution’s case relied on a FIR filed on 13‑10‑2025 for an alleged incident that occurred on 20‑06‑2025, showing a delay of nearly four months without explanation. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, that the FIR was lodged to pressure him into a marriage proposal, and that he has a clean criminal antecedent. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner’s illegal demand prevented the marriage from being solemnised. The Court, noting the unexplained FIR delay and the petitioner’s clean record, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.15,000, two sureties, verification of antecedents, and compliance with Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the serious nature of the alleged offences
- Whether the unexplained delay in filing the FIR warrants denial of bail
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(2), 3(5), 482(2), 64, 69
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. ¾
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR delay
- dowry prohibition
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34286 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-549 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Md. Zahir @ Md. Zahid Hussain S/o Late Md. Safur Ansari R/o vill -
Kalyanpur, PS- Kalyanpur, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 19-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Chakia P.S. Case No. 549 of 2025 for allegedly having
committed offence under Sections 69, 64, 318(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S. as well as Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to
the effect that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was
solemnised with Md. Ishtiaq. On 10.06.2025, five persons came
to see the girl and after consent of the parties, the marriage was
solemnised. Some gold ornaments were given at that time. It has
further been alleged that the boy met the daughter of the
informant and obtained her mobile number and started
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34286 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
2/4
communicating with her. He took her to a place and established
physical relationship with her. Later on, he refused to marry the
girl and the petitioner went to the house of the informant and
demanded a Scarpio vehicle and said that if the same will not be
given, the boy is not agreeable for the marriage.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence
rather. The prosecution story is entirely false and baseless. He
submits that the date of occurrence is 20.06.2026 and the First
Information Report has been lodged on 13.10.2025 i.e. after a
delay of about 3 months and 23 days, which has not been
explained in the First Information Report. He further submits
that prior to the present First Information Report, the informant
proposed the marriage in between the daughter of the informant
and the son of the petitioner, claiming that both are in love,
however petitioner and his family members refused for the said
proposal. He submits that to put pressure upon the petitioner, so
that the informant can marry his daughter with the son of the
petitioner, the present case has been lodged against the
petitioner and his family members. The petitioner has got a
clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes a prayer for bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34286 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
3/4
of the petitioner and submits that the due to illegal demand of
the petitioner, the marriage, which was fixed in between the
parties, has not been solemnised.
6. Having considering the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the First Information
Report has been lodged on 13.10.2025, for the occurrence,
which is said to have taken place on 20.06.2025 i.e. after a delay
of about 3 months 23 days and no explanation whatsoever has
been given by the informant in the First Information Report. It
has further transpired that the petitioner has got a clean
antecedent. Considering the above let the petitioner, above
named in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of six
weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in
connection with Chakia P.S. Case No. 549 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with further
condition:
(1) The learned Court concerned shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34286 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
4/4
is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation
of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Ajay/Pallavi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.