Patna High Court
Jhunna AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court refused bail, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the confessional statement of the co‑accused preclude the grant of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Jhunna Ansari, was arrested on 14 August 2025 in connection with a murder case (Nautan P.S. Case No. 398 of 2025) involving the death of a woman allegedly killed by her husband and accomplices. The FIR alleges that the petitioner, identified as accused No. 9, participated in the torture and killing of the victim, based on a confessional statement of co‑accused Brijesh Sahani. The petitioner pleaded innocence, claiming a clean antecedent, no familial relationship with the victim, and that the FIR is fabricated. The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the co‑accused’s confession and the seriousness of the offences under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS. The Court, after considering the material and the seriousness of the charges, declined to grant bail, refusing the petitioner's prayer.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a murder case involving alleged participation in the crime.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused can be relied upon to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- Section 103
- Section 238
- Section 3(5)
- BNS
- High Court
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88258 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
======================================================
Jhunna Ansari Son of Mobarak Ansari Resident of Village - Maduwaha Tola
Sihuliya, P.S.- Nautan, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate
: Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate
: Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
14.08.2025 in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 398 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and
3(5) of BNS.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on
12.08.2025, at about 12:10 midday, the informant, Bhikhari
Sahani son of Late Tilakdhari Sahani, resident of village-
Dakshin Telhua, Sati Tola, P. S.- Nautan, District- West
Champaran, submitted typed report before the S. H. O. of
Nautan P.S. alleging therein that his daughter was married to
Brajesh Sahani about 09 years ago, and she was blessed with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88258 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
three children. Her husband had developed illicit relation with
his 'bhabhi', and on protest by his daughter, all the 11 named
accused persons including the petitioner figuring accused no. 9
used to torture her committing marpit with her. On 09.08.2025,
at about 10.00 p. m. in the night, while her husband was
sleeping with his 'bhabhi', his daughter raised objection, and
then they caused her death, and disappeared the dead body. On
10.08.2025, while the informant was trying to find out about the
assailant, some people asking him to keep their names secret,
and said that they had disappeared her dead body after killing
her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has
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 petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that petitioner is neither the family member of the
husband of the deceased nor relative of the in-laws of the
deceased. It is next submitted that there is no specific allegation
against the petitioner in the present matter.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88258 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
State on the basis of materials available on record and the case
dairy has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that the co-accused namely, Brijesh
Sahani, who is happened to be husband of the deceased as stated
in paragraph-33 of the case diary that the petitioner was
involved in the present crime in question along with co-accused
Brijesh Sahani and on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused Brijesh Sahani, the dead body of the victim was
recovered, so confessional statement of co-accused person
cannot be disbelieved in the present case
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection
with Nautan P.S. Case No. 398 of 2025 pending in the learned
SDJM, West Champaran at Bettiah.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…