Patna High Court
SATTAR ANSARIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioners subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Petitioners Sattar Ansari and Sufiya Khatoon were arrested in connection with a kidnapping alleged under Sections 96 and 137(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that they abducted a 17‑year‑old girl from her home on the night of 18‑19 July 2025, but the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS Act did not support the charge. The petitioners claimed a clean antecedent, asserted that the FIR was fabricated, and argued that no specific allegation was made against them. The State opposed bail, while the opposite party (XYZ) failed to appear. The court, noting the victim’s non‑supportive statement, the petitioners’ clean record, and the lack of concrete evidence, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to accused of offences under Sections 96 and 137(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS Act, which does not support the prosecution, affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioners’ clean antecedent and alleged lack of specific allegations in the FIR justify bail despite the seriousness of the offences.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO
- Section 183
- clean antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6664 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. SATTAR ANSARI S/o- Ismail Ansari R/v- Alaula Ps- Kalyanpur Dist- East
Champaran
2. Sufiya Khatoon W/o- Sattar Ansari R/v- Alaula Ps- Kalyanpur Dist- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XYZ W/o- Ashlam Ali R/v- Alaula Ps- Kalyanpur Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bal Govind Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seek bail who is in custody since
24.09.2025 in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 293 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 96 and 137(2)
of BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
3. Despite valid service of notice, no one has appeared
on behalf of O.P. No. 2.
4. That the prosecution case, in brief, is that on the
intervening night of 18th and 19th July, 2025 informant woke up
at the sound of opening of back door of her house and when she
went there to examine it, she observed that all the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6664 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
2/4
persons namely Arif Ansari, Sattar Ansari, and Sufiya Khatoon
were taking her minor daughter aged about 17 years forcibly
with them out of her house, when she screamed the persons of
her house woke up, but accused persons had disappeared into
the darkness. It is next alleged that she and her family searched
for her daughter, but she is traceless, further alleged that other
co-accused Arif Ansari had been eyeing her daughter for some
time, he would constantly harass her daughter with phone calls
and had even called the informant and threatening to kidnap her
daughter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have clean antecedent and are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and
fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the petitioners and informant are next door
neighbours. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of FIR it
appears that no specific allegation has been alleged against them
in the FIR and the statement of victim was recorded under
Section 183 of BNSS in which she has not supported the case of
the prosecution and she has further stated that petitioners have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6664 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
3/4
not kidnapped her.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioners.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent
and the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution in
her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, let the
petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 7 th District
and Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, POCSO Act,
East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Kalyanpur P.S.
Case No. 293 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioners 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
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6664 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
4/4
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…