Md. Abrar Ansari @ RinkuversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43510 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2025 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Abrar Ansari @ Rinku Son of Md. Barkat Ali @ Late Barkat Ali R/o
                 Village - Chatar Kajichak, P.S.- Barhara, District - Bhojpur.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Yasmin Parveen Wife of Md. Abrar Ansari @ Rinku D/o , R/o Village -
                 Chatar Kajichak, P.S.- Barhara, District - Bhojpur, Presently Residing
                 Village Koilwar, Ward No. 13, P.S.- Koilwar, District - Bhojpur.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate.
                                                   Mr. Amish Kumar No I, Advocate.
                                                   Mr. Ishaan Raj, Advocate., Advocate.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-07-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for bail registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 85, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),

                   109, 329(4), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and

                   Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   informant was married to the petitioner two years ago. She is

                   also having a daughter out of wedlock. It is alleged that the

                   petitioner was in the habit of using intoxicants and she was

                   subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the dowry
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43510 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
                                            2/3




          demand of Rs. 50,000/-. It is further alleged that a panchayati

          has also taken place between the parties and the parties were

          ready for divorce and to go to Imarat Sariya for the divorce, but

          as the petitioner could not reach there, the divorce could not be

          finalized. It is further alleged that while the informant was alone

          at her house, the petitioner entered the house and assaulted her

          with knife.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

          committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this

          case. He also submits that it is much clearer from the FIR that

          the informant does not want to continue the matrimonial

          relationship, and as far as the allegation of cruelty on account of

          non-fulfillment of the dowry demand is concerned, that is only a

          superaddition. Regarding injuries, learned counsel for the

          petitioner has submitted that Annexure-3 is the injury report,

          which goes to show that the informant has received the

          following injuries:

                  (i) lacerated would of size 1” x ½” x ¼” on her left

          forearm.

                  (ii) lacerated wound of size ½” x ½” x ¼” on the left

          breast.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43510 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
                                                       3/3




                             The doctor has opined that injuries nos. 1 and 2 are

                     simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance, and

                     regarding injury no. 3, it is said that the same is also simple in

                     nature. He further submits that the present case has been filed

                     only with a view to malice the petitioner. Moreover, a statement

                     has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no

                     criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody

                     since 01.01.2026.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                     inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                     petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                     bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

                     of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief

                     Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Koilwar

                     P.S. Case No. 213 of 2025.


                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

U      T