Patna High Court
Jahira Khatoon @ Jahida KhatoonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that regular bail could not be granted to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Jahira Khatoon and Md. Mokim, were charged under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for the alleged murder of the informant's daughter, who had been married to Jishan. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record (except one case for the second petitioner), and argued that the informant was not an eye‑witness and that the dead body was left in the house, indicating no attempt to conceal evidence. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that a charge‑sheet had been filed, the trial had commenced, and the post‑mortem indicated death by throttling and asphyxia, underscoring the seriousness of the offence. The Court examined the gravity of the charges, the fact that the accused were in‑laws present at the scene, and the procedural stage of the case. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant release, the Court rejected the regular bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail despite the filing of a charge‑sheet and commencement of trial for murder under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the lack of an eye‑witness and the alleged absence of evidence‑tampering are sufficient grounds to grant bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 80
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- false implication
- anticipatory bail
- charge sheet
- trial commencement
- postmortem
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88630 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2025 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Jahira Khatoon @ Jahida Khatoon S/o Md. Mokim R/o Village- Pirpainti
Bazar, Police Station- Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur
2. Md. Mokim S/o Late Md. Muslim R/o Village- Pirpainti Bazar, Police
Station- Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pronoti Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 25-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The Investigating Officer of the case, in
compliance of the order dated 11.03.2026, is present in the
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner
no. 2 has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that
her daughter about 8- 9 months back was married to Jishan,
further after marriage, her daughter was tortured by the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88630 of 2025(3) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
persons and they demanded money and the victim used to
disclose about the occurrence, further on 19.06.2025 at 8.00
P.M. the accused persons including the petitioners killed her
daughter, accordingly on receiving information, the informant
came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her
daughter was lying and no one was present in the house.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that husband has not been
made an accused in the instant case. It is further submitted that
informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and the entire
allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted that
had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence, in that event
effort would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a
view to conceal evidence, but then the dead body was lying in
the house. It is also submitted that Md. Hussain and Gudia
Khatoon had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 73788 of 2025 and the same
came to be allowed by an order dated 17.11.2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the regular bail
application of the petitioners. The learned APP, based on
instruction of the Investigating Officer of the case, submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88630 of 2025(3) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
marriage of the deceased with Jishan was a love marriage and
Jishan was working in Mumbai and it was in his absence that
the occurrence of killing was committed in the house. It is also
submitted that the postmortem report records- that the death was
due to asphyxia and venous congestion caused due to combined
effect of throttling and ligature strangulation.” It is next
submitted that Gudia Khatoon is married sister-in-law (Nanad)
of the deceased and was staying separately while Md. Husain is
brother of the husband of the deceased and is a young boy aged
about 19 years. It is further submitted that husband was not
present at the place of occurrence rather was in Mumbai and
postmortem report records throttling as the cause of death and
petitioners being in-laws were present in the house. It is next
submitted that charge sheet has been submitted, on which the
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1
is in custody since 18.08.2025 and petitioner no. 2 is in custody
since 22.08.2025 and charges have been framed against them,
on which the learned APP submits that since charges have been
framed, the trial has commenced.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
8. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88630 of 2025(3) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
stands rejected.
9. The personal appearance of the Investigating
Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…