Patna High Court
Diljan KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to strict conditions, finding that the bail bond and safeguards sufficiently protect the interests of justice.
Summary
The petitioner, Diljan Khan, was arrested in connection with a 2022 police case alleging multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, including dowry harassment, assault, and creation of a vulgar video. The informant, Najiya Pravin, claimed she was married to the petitioner in 2019, subjected to dowry torture, forced stripping for a video that went viral, and a violent assault during pregnancy that caused an abortion. The petitioner had been in custody since December 2024 and had previously been granted interim bail in August 2023, which was later withdrawn after he failed to surrender. Both parties argued over the petitioner’s conduct, with the State and informant asserting he poses a threat, while the petitioner’s counsel pledged compliance with court conditions. The court, after considering the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s prolonged detention, decided to grant bail subject to stringent conditions including a cash bond, sureties, regular court and police appearances, and a prohibition on tampering with witnesses or committing further offences.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail to an accused facing multiple serious offences, including dowry harassment and assault?
- Does the petitioner’s prior non‑compliance with interim bail warrant denial of bail in the present application?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354(b)(c)(d), 498(A), 504, 506, 509
- Information Technology Act — s. 67, 67(A)
Subjects
- bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC
- IT Act
- criminal procedure
- violence against women
- court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55124 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2022 Thana- KHIJARSARAI District- Gaya
======================================================
Diljan Khan S/O Hasin Khan R/O Village- Saidih, P.S.- Khizarsarai, Distt.-
Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Najiya Pravin D/o Safik Ahmad R/o Vill Mandai P.S. Khijarsarai Distt Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kunwar Narayan Jamuar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sheikh Arkan Ahmad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
7 06-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with
Khizarsarai P.S. Case No. 360 of 2022. for the offence
punishable under sections 341, 323, 354(b)(c)(d), 504, 506, 509,
498(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 and
67(A) of the I.T. Act, lodged on 02.10.2022 by the informant,
Naziya Praveen.
3. As per the prosecution story, the lady alleged that
she got married to this petitioner in the year 2019 but was
tortured for dowry. The further allegation is that on the point of
knife, she was made to strip, video created and later it was made
viral. The last allegation is that when she was pregnant,
purposely assault was made in the stomach, causing abortion.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55124 of 2025(7) dt.06-02-2026
2/4
Accordingly, the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has already suffered by being in custody since 03.12.2024 and if
granted relief, not only shall be diligently appearing in trial, will
not in any way threaten either the informant lady and/or her
family members and if he fails to abide by the said undertaking,
the informant shall be free to take steps for cancellation of the
bail bond.
5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other
hand has pointed out that after granting interim relief to the
petitioner on 04.08.2023, he remained outside but despite the
interim relief having been withdrawn, he chose not to surrender
in next number of months. He further always threatens the
family members whenever visit the court.
6. Learned APP echoes the submission of the learned
counsel representing the informant and submits that the
petitioner is not a normal husband but behaves like criminal.
7. The grave allegation is there, the petitioner has not
acted as a husband of the lady, however, the fact remains that he
has remained in custody for long, the aforesaid undertaking has
been given that he shall not be threatening the family members
and/or the informant and shall be diligently appearing in trial,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55124 of 2025(7) dt.06-02-2026
3/4
considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend
him the privilege of bail.
8. It is however made clear that if the petitioner in
anyway threatens the lady/family members or tried to intimidate
them, the informant shall be free to take steps for cancellation of
bail bond.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District &
Additional Sessios Judge-X, Gaya, in connection with
Khizarsarai P.S. Case No. 360 of 2022 subject to the following
conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to
show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every month for six months to mark his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55124 of 2025(7) dt.06-02-2026
4/4
attendance and at the end of the period a certificate be submitted
before the Trial Court;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…