Patna High Court
Anjur Sai @ Jamil AkhtarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court extended anticipatory bail, directing surrender within four weeks and imposing conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioners, Anjur Sai and Md. Aftab Alam, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case (Dhaka P.S. Case No. 513 of 2023) involving multiple IPC offences including extortion, assault and theft. An earlier anticipatory bail order dated 27.04.2024 was not acted upon because the petitioners could not surrender within the stipulated time due to the first petitioner’s lower back pain and the second petitioner’s ongoing medical treatment. They filed a fresh anticipatory bail application, reiterating their health constraints and requesting an extension of the bail privilege. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioners had failed to comply with the earlier order. The High Court, noting that the allegations were general and omnibus and that no complicit evidence had been established, modified and extended the anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to surrender within four weeks and furnish bail bonds with specified conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order imposed conditions regarding surety, appearance before the trial court, non‑tampering with witnesses, and abstention from further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be extended or modified when the petitioners failed to surrender within the time prescribed in the earlier bail order due to medical reasons
- Whether the general and omnibus nature of the allegations and lack of proven complicity justify the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 482
- health grounds
- surrender
- bail conditions
- general and omnibus allegations
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89297 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-513 Year-2023 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Anjur Sai @ Jamil Akhtar S/O Late Suleman Sai R/O Vill.- Fulwariya, P.S.-
Dhaka, Dist.- East Champaran
2. Md. Aftab Alam @ Aftab Alam S/O Wasi Alam R/O Vill.- Fulwariya, P.S.-
Dhaka, Dist.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prateek Tandon, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Dhaka P.S. Case No. 513 of 2023 dated
08.09.2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
447, 341, 323, 385, 384, 354(B), 379, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. As per prosecution case, the accused persons
including the petitioners are accused of demanding ransom of
Rs. one lakh from the Informant in exchange for staying in the
house, dragging his wife on the road as also of stealing Rs.
2000/-.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89297 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
for a land dispute regarding partition of the ancestral property,
the incident is alleged to have taken place, while the allegations
against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and
there is no injury report on record and considering the same,
learned court below had granted privilege of anticiaptory bail to
the petitioners vide order dated 27.04.2024 in ABP No. 1287 of
2024 but, as the petitioner no.1 Anjur Sai @ Jamil Akhtar was
suffering from Lower Back Pain and the petitioner no.2 was
engaged in his treatment, the petitioners could not surrender
within the time stipulated and, thereafter, for extension of time,
an application was filed, which was not considered and,
accordingly, the petitioners had to withdraw the same.
Subsequently, vide fresh anticipatory bail petition, the
petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail and the
reasons were also disclosed by them in the said petition wherein
it has specifically been stated that the petitioner no.1 Anjur Sai
@ Jamil Akhtar was suffering from lower back pain and the
petitioner no.2 Md. Aftab Alam @ Abtab Alam was busy in his
treatment but, owing to there being inordinate delay in
surrendering before the court below, such privilege of
anticipatory bail dated 27.04.2024, was not extended to them.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89297 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the fact that the allegations are
general and omnibus and their complicity has not been found
out and once such privilege for anticipatory bail was extended
to the petitioners but, they could not surrender and furnish
bonds withing the stipulated time, the court concerned should
not have passed such order, without verifying the veracity.
7. Accordingly, the privilege, which was extended
in favour of these petitioners, is further extended by modifying
that order and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran
within a period of four weeks from today for furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, East Champaran in connection with Dhaka P.S. Case
No. 513 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as well as the following
conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall who shall
provide official document / personal affidavit to show his/her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89297 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) 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 their bail bonds by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) 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;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing
any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at
liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U T
Checking your session…