Patna High Court
Mumtaz Ansari @ Momtaz AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to compliance with stipulated conditions.
Summary
Mumtaz Ansari was arrested on 13 November 2025 in connection with a murder case (Kursela P.S. Case No. 148 of 2024) where the victim Shivani Kumari was found dead. The prosecution alleged his involvement based on a confessional statement of a co-accused, while the petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated and has a clean antecedent. He highlighted that the FIR was lodged thirteen days after the body was recovered and that other co-accused had already been granted bail by the same court. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the petitioner was not originally named in the FIR and that similar co-accused were on bail. Consequently, the court ordered bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The bail order was directed to be executed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the FIR and charges under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the reliance on a co‑accused's confession justify granting bail
- Whether the petitioner's clean criminal antecedent and the bail granted to other co‑accused warrant bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- murder
- FIR
- clean antecedent
- co‑accused
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4717 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2024 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar
======================================================
Mumtaz Ansari @ Momtaz Ansari S/o Moin Ansari R/o vill - Dhruvganj
Kharik, Kharik Bazar, P.S.- Kharik, Distt.- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 Heard Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
13.11.2025, in connection with Kursela P.S. Case No. 148 of
2024, G.R. No. 400 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 17.08.2024 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the
B.N.S.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
informant’s daughter, Shivani Kumari, went to a marriage event
on 04.08.2024 but did not return. On 06.08.2024 her mutilated
dead body was found behind the house of Md. Mursil.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4717 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/4
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the informant is not an
eye witness of the alleged occurrence and initially the petitioner
was not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has
been transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused person namely Golu Ansari @ Rahul Ansari. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially the U.D.
Case No. 10 of 2024 dated 10.08.2024 was registered and
thereafter the dead body of the victim was recovered but the
family members of the victim has not lodged any case against
anyone and after the completion of more than 48 hours of
recovery of dead body no F.I.R. was lodged and the present
F.I.R. was instituted after thirteen days afterthough only to
falsely implicate the accused persons. He further submits that
co-accused persons, namely, Md. Mursil @ Md. Mansur and
Golu Ansari @ Rahul Ansari have been granted bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.07.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32494 of 2025, another co-accused
person, namely, Chhagali Khatoon has been granted bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 76784 of 2025, another co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4717 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
3/4
person, namely, Md. Hasib Ansari @ Hasib Ansari has been
granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 12.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 62464 of 2025,
respectively. He further submits that the police after
investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and
the petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and
initially the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and similarly
situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by a
different Coordinate Benches of this Court, let the petitioner,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Katihar in connection with KUrsela P.S. Case No.
148 of 2024, subject to the following conditions :-
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4717 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
4/4
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…