Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Gulam HaidarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioners subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of accused persons, sought pre‑arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 209 of 2025 alleging offences under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 74, 109, 351(2), 352 and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including alleged assault and sexual assault of an informant. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with weapons, assaulted the informant, sexually assaulted her, and stole valuables. The petitioners contended that the case was a retaliatory move arising from earlier FIRs they had lodged against the informant and her family, and argued that the medical report did not substantiate any sexual assault, showing only a simple bruise on the temporal region. The court noted the lack of corroborative medical evidence, the two‑sided enmity, and the existence of prior FIRs filed by the petitioners, and therefore found no compelling reason to deny bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the petitioners on bail, subject to a cash bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and conditions relating to family surety and non‑intimidation of witnesses.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory/pre‑arrest bail should be granted to the petitioners despite allegations of sexual assault and other serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • pre‑arrest bail
  • sexual assault allegation
  • en­mity between parties
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • injury report
  • conditions of bail

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91922 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Gulam Haidar S/O Asgar Ali @ Munna @ Munna Miya R/O Vill.- Khujwa,
                 P.S.- Raghunathpur, Dist.- Siwan.

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                                                       with
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 238 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
           1.     Asgar Ali @ Munna @ Munna Miya S/o Late Mansoor Miya @ Mansur Ali
                  R/o Village - Khujwa, P.S - Raghunathpur, District - Siwan
           2.    Riyasat Ali @ Reyasat Ali S/o Serajul Miya @ Serajuddin R/o Village -
                 Khujwa, P.S - Raghunathpur, District - Siwan
           3.    Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Hussain Ansari S/o Kasim @ Kasim Ansari R/o
                 Village - Khujwa, P.S - Raghunathpur, District - Siwan
           4.    Irfan @ Irfan Ali S/o Hasim @ Hasim Ansari R/o Village - Khujwa, P.S -
                 Raghunathpur, District - Siwan
           5.    Samir Miya @ Shamsher Ali @ Shamsher Miya S/o Ahmad Miya R/o
                 Village - Khujwa, P.S - Raghunathpur, District - Siwan

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 91922 of 2025)
                 For the Petitioner/s     : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, Adv.

                 (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 238 of 2026)
                 For the Petitioner/s     : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-01-2026                   Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91922 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            2/5




          State.

                       2. With the consent of the parties, both the bail

          applications arising out of the same P.S. Case are being heard

          together and disposed off by this common order.

                       3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

          connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 209 of 2025,

          registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),

          190, 115(2), 74, 109, 351(2), 352 and 303(2) of the Bharatiya

          Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                       4. Based upon the written report the prosecution

          alleges that in the night of 04.08.2025, the petitioners variously

          armed with pistol, rod and lathi arrived at the house of the

          informant. On exhortation of Shamsher Miya, accused Guddu,

          Miya and Saif Ali threw the informant on the ground. It is

          specifically alleged that the petitioners have sexually assaulted

          the    informant       and    further     the    petitioner   of   Criminal

          Miscellaneous No. 91922 of 2025 alongwith Reyasat Ali

          assaulted the informant by means of iron rod over her back and

          shoulder. There is further allegation of snatching of valuables

          and cash kept in the shop of the petitioner.

                       5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

          petitioners submitted that the present case is nothing but an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91922 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            3/5




          outcome of previous enmity standing between the parties. Prior

          to the said occurrence co-accused Saddam Ansari had lodged

          Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025 dated 02.03.2025

          against the informant of the present case and others, against

          which the informant had lodged Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 55

          of 2025 by making similar allegation of causing sexual assault.

          It is further contended that subsequently on 02.08.2025, the

          mother of co-accused Saddam Ansari had lodged Raghunathpur

          P.S. Case No. 207 of 2025 on 02.08.2025 against the informant

          and her family members and in order to put pressure upon all

          the family members of the petitioners, the present FIR bearing

          Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 209 of 2025 is instituted. The

          present case is nothing but the counterblast of Raghunathpur

          P.S. Case No. 207 of 2025. It is further contended that the

          informant has also instituted Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 203 pf

          2025. Moreover, the entire allegation falls to the ground for the

          simple reason that no sexual assault has been corroborated by

          the injury report and only one bruise and swelling with bleeding

          in right temporal region was found, the nature of which is said

          to be simple. The petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.

          91922 of 2025 is carrying fair antecedent whereas the

          petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 238 of 2026 bear 1-2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91922 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            4/5




          antecedent, except petitioner nos. 2 and 5 of the said case.

                       6. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State

          and the learned Advocate for the informant vehemently opposed

          the pre-arrest bail application and submits that there is a specific

          accusation against all the petitioners, specially petitioner Gulam

          Haidar and Guddu Miya, who have sexually assaulted the

          informant and earlier also they were involved in committing the

          crime upon the informant and her family members and, as such,

          the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

                       7. Having considered the submissions advanced by

          learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of

          the fact that the injury report does not support the allegation of

          sexual assault and moreover the injury which has been found

          over the temporal region is simple in nature. The enmity is a two

          edged sword which may cut both the sides, besides prior to the

          institution fo the present case, there is an FIR instituted by the

          petitioner’s side bearing Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 207 of

          2025, let the petitioners above named be released on bail, in the

          event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a

          period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a

          copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-

          (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91922 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                                         5/5




                       satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate in connection with

                       Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 209 of 2025, with the further

                       following conditions:-

                                    (i) That one of the bailors shall be the own/close

                       family members of the petitioners.

                                    (ii)If    the     petitioner      is    found   involved   in

                       intimidating/threatening the witnesses or the informant or would

                       indulge in such activities in future, the informant/State shall be

                       at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of their

                       bail bond(s).



                                                    (Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.