Patna High Court
Hamida BanoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing the petitioner to be released on bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
Hamida Bano, the mother‑in‑law of the informant, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The informant alleged that, after six years of childlessness, Hamida Bano pressured her son to take a second marriage and, in collusion with a Maulana, gave the informant toxic water, leading to her unconsciousness, rape, and an attempted strangulation. The petitioner contended that the allegations were fabricated to coerce the family and that no material linked her to the offences. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that there was insufficient evidence to justify denial of bail and granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438(2) CrPC.
- Whether the FIR and the material on record establish a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- false implication
- family dispute
- rape
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39474 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2026 Thana- PARSABAZAR District- Patna
======================================================
Hamida Bano Wife of Md. Mobin Resident of Village - Ebadullah Chak, P.S.-
Parsa, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Ataul Haque
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman
Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel
Mr. Shivnandan Bharti
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
190, 115(2), 109, 64, 85, 123 and 61(2) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that she
was married 23.03.2018 with Safkat Parwej and even after six
years of marriage, the informant could not conceive, hence her
mother-in-law (petitioner) started pressurizing her husband to
perform second marriage but her husband was not ready, hence
petitioner in connivance with a Maulana gave her toxic water on
account to which she lost consciousness and her brother-in-law
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39474 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
Shinu raped her in an unconscious state and disclosed that she
had been raped on the instruction of Maulana, so that she
becomes pregnant, further Akib tried to strangulate her but her
father-in-law saved her.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case being
mother-in-law of the informant. It is next submitted that from
perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that the informant alleges that she was married to
Safkat in the year 2018 and even after six years of marriage, she
could not conceive, as such, the petitioner being mother-in-law
started pressurizing her son to perform second marriage, but
then her son did not agree. It is thus submitted that this amply
demonstrates that husband was not in favor of performing
second marriage though he was entitled to perform the second
marriage in accordance with Islamic law. It is further submitted
that it does not appear probable that the petitioner at the instance
of a Maulana would have got the informant raped by her other
son, as it is not the case of the informant that there was any
deficiency in her husband. It is further submitted that since
informant was not conceiving, hence there was a bickering in
the family which led to the institution of the instant false case. It
is also submitted that initially, a complaint case was instituted
with an intent to implicate the entire family members and coerce
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39474 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
them into submission but on orders of the Court, the instant FIR
came to be instituted. It is also submitted that during course of
the investigation no material transpired connecting the petitioner
with the offence.
5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory
bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
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 in
connection with Parsa Bazar P. S. Case No. 10 of 2026, subject
to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
rajesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.