Patna High Court
Md. Mustafa Nadaf @ Mostufa NadafversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that, given the absence of concrete evidence and the post‑mortem indicating suicide, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, relatives of a widow, were implicated in a murder case after a dead body was found hanging from a tree, based on an FIR filed by an informant who claimed the deceased was threatened during a panchayati. The petitioners argued they have clean antecedents, the informant is not an eye‑witness, and the post‑mortem report shows death by asphyxia due to hanging, suggesting suicide rather than homicide. They sought anticipatory bail, contending that the allegations rest on mere suspicion and that they will cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, but the Court noted the lack of substantive evidence linking the petitioners to the crime. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, subject to bond, surety, and conditions that bail may be cancelled if they fail to cooperate or if a charge‑sheet implicates them.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S despite the pending investigation.
- Whether the post‑mortem report indicating death by asphyxia due to hanging negates the suspicion of murder.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- suicide
- Section 482
- B.N.S.S
- FIR
- postmortem
- investigation
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5468 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-430 Year-2025 Thana- BABUBARHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Md. Mustafa Nadaf @ Mostufa Nadaf son of Md. Sahid Nadaf Resident Of
Village - Dudani, ps- Babubarhi, Dist- Madhubani
2. Md. Firoz Nadaf son of Md. Sahid Nadaf @ Sahid Nadaf Resident Of
Village - Dudani, ps- Babubarhi, Dist- Madhubani
3. Md. Sobarti Nadaf @Md. Sowrati Nadaf son of Hasan Nadaf Resident Of
Village - Dudani, ps- Babubarhi, Dist- Madhubani
4. Md. Sahid Nadaf son of Mansoor Nadaf @ Mansur Nadaf Resident Of
Village - Dudani, ps- Babubarhi, Dist- Madhubani
5. Md. Ehshan @ Md. Ahsan Son of Dhuda Baksa @ Khuda Baksa Resident
Of Village - Sudaiduaram, Ps- Phulparas, Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Jha Raman, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ashish Kumar Palit, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and
3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The SHO, Babubarhi P.S. and the Investigating
Officer of the case, in compliance of the order dated 29.04.2026,
are present in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5468 of 2026(5) dt.05-05-2026
2/5
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 24.09.2025 at 6 A.M., a dead body was found
hanging from a tree, on alarm, the informant came to the place
of occurrence and identfied the dead body of her son whose
neck was tied with a Dupatta and mouth tied with clothes, next
alleges that four days prior to the occurrence, a panchayati
regarding a mutual dispute involving the deceased had taken
place, during which several persons including the petitioners
had threatened to kill her son, thus the informant alleges based
on suspicion that her son was killed by the accused persons
including the petitioners by hanging him from the tree.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the entire
allegation hinges around suspicion, as informant is not an eye
witness to the occurrence nor the FIR discloses as to what
dispute involving the deceased had taken place for which a
panchayati was held and the deceased was threatened by the
accused persons including the petitioners. It is further submitted
that no doubt the dead body of the deceased was found hanging
on a tree, but then whether the petitioners were involved in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5468 of 2026(5) dt.05-05-2026
3/5
occurrence or not is an aspect of investigation. It is next
submitted that the deceased had made viral a photograph of the
daughter of Sulekha Khatooln for which a panchayati was held
but then in the FIR, the informant for reasons best known does
not disclose the reason for which the panchayati was held. It is
next submitted that Sulekha Khatoon is a widow and petitioners,
in the instant anticipatory bail application are brothers, father
and son-in-law of Sulekha Khatoon. It is next submitted that
since Sulekha Khatoon was a widow, as such, she was staying
with her daughter at her parental home. It is next submitted that
the deceased wanted to marry the daughter of Sulekha Khatoon
which was being objected by the side of the petitioners, but
when the photograph of the daughter of Sulekha Khatoon was
made viral by the deceased thereafter a panchayati was held in
which the petitioners and his side rebuked the deceased. It is
submitted that reaction of the petitioners being related to
Sulekha Khatoon was normal that they rebuked the deceased in
the panchayati, but the the same by no stretch of imagination
can lead to an inference that the petitioners killed the deceased.
It is further submitted that from perusal of the postmortem
report, it would manifest that no external injury was found on
the body of the deceased and his dead body was found hanging
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5468 of 2026(5) dt.05-05-2026
4/5
from a tree. It is also submitted that the postmortem report
records the cause of death as asphyxia on account of hanging, it
is thus submitted that the deceased was not strangulated to death
rather he committed suicide. It is also submitted that it does not
appear probable that the accused persons could have dragged
the deceased on a tree and thereafter hanged him, but then it is
fairly submitted that the same is an aspect of investigation. It is
next submitted if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioners, the petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate
in the investigation to prove their innocence.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, but then the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant is not in a position
to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that informant in the FIR has concealed
the relevant facts and that informant is not an eye witness to the
occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5468 of 2026(5) dt.05-05-2026
5/5
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court where the
case is pending/successor court in connection with Babubarhi
P.S. Case No.430 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S
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 petitioners despite
giving assurance to this Court are not co-operating in the
investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
9. It is further made clear that if charge sheet is
submitted connecting the petitioners with the offence, in that
event, the anticipatory bail order shall lose its effect.
10. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
11. The personal appearance of the SHO and the
Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…