Patna High Court
Md Ajmal AnsariversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Md Ajmal Ansari, applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case under IPC sections 341, 323, 379, 498A and 494/34. He argued that the notice served to the opposite party’s daughter was valid, that he was falsely implicated, and that he was financially supporting the opposite party and her children, who reside in his house. The State opposed bail, suggesting the petitioner’s claim of support might be a ploy and that bail should be denied. The court examined the validity of the notice, the merits of the false‑implication claim, and the relevance of the petitioner’s financial assistance, and applied Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. to impose conditions. It directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to the stipulated conditions, and allowed the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice served to the opposite party’s daughter constitutes valid service for anticipatory bail purposes
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and financial support to the opposite party affect the grant of anticipatory bail
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the circumstances of the pending IPC offences
- Application of Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in imposing bail conditions
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379, 494/34, 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC offences
- notice service
- false implication
- Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
- family dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86399 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jamui
======================================================
Md Ajmal Ansari S/O Hasanu Miyan Resident of Vill.- Islamnagar,
Sitamadih, P.S.- Garhi, Distt.- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Rabiya Khatoon W/O Md Ajmal Ansari Resident of Vill.- Islamnagar,
(Sitamadih,) P.O.- Islamnagar, P.S.- Garhi, Distt.- Jamui
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 379, 498A, 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the case was taken up on 08.01.2026, when notices were issued
on opposite party no.2. It is next submitted that from perusal of
the office report dated 23.02.2026, it would manifest that the
same records that the ordinary notice has been received by the
daughter of the opposite party no.2.
4. Since notice has been received by the daughter of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86399 of 2025(3) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
the opposite party no.2, hence it is deemed to be validly served.
5. It is next submitted that petitioner, being husband,
has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant.
It is further submitted that the informant along with the children
are still living in the same house where the petitioner resides. It
is also submitted that petitioner is bearing the expense of the
opposite party no.2 and his three children whether it be
educational expense or expense relating to their livelihood. It is
also submitted that specific pleading to that effect has been
made at Para-12 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next
submitted that at Para-11, specific pleading has been made
denying the allegation of second marriage. It is also submitted
that since the opposite party no.2 is staying in the same house
where the petitioner resides and petitioner is taking care of
opposite party no.2 and the children, as such, the opposite party
no.2 even after receiving notice chooses not to appear and
contest.
6. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application and submits that though a specific pleading has been
made that opposite party no.2 along with the children are
staying in the same house where the petitioner resides and
petitioner is taking care of their financial needs including
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86399 of 2025(3) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
education and livelihood, but then, the said pleading may be
ploy, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that he has instruction to make submission
that in the event, if it is found what has been pleaded at Para-12
is incorrect i.e. petitioner is not providing financial, educational
help to the opposite party no.2 and the children, in that event,
the opposite party no.2 shall be free to file an application before
this Court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail application,
if granted.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six
weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-
bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court where the case is pending/successor Court in
connection with Jamui Mahila P. S. Case No.67 of 2022, subject
to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…