Shahnaz Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.684 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Shahnaz Khatoon, W/o Mojib Alam @ Md. Mojib Alam R/o Village - Halsi, P.S - Halsi, District - Lakhisarai 2.
Mojib Alam @ Md. Mojib Alam S/o Abdul Hameed @ Hameed Miyan R/o Village - Halsi, P.S - Halsi, District - Lakhisarai ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rani Kumari D/o Sunil Das R/o - Sahur Ward No. 7, P.S - Suryagarha, District - Lakhisarai ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Vijay Kumar For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Binay Krishna Mr.Rajnish Kumar Ms.Sweta Burnwal Mr.Sheo Nandan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-03-2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The appellants have challenged the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Court of Smt. Rajani Kumari, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhisarai in connection with ABP No.1478 of 2025 arising out of Lakhisarai Mahila P. S. Case No.65 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 85, 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., Sections 3 and 4 of the D. P. Act and Section 3(i)(r)(s)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.684 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026 2/3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that appellants, being mother in-law and father in-law, have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that informant married the son of the appellants and out of the wedlock, a child was born, but then, it is alleged that appellant along with the husband are pressurizing the informant to convert her religion. It is next submitted that informant prior to marrying the son of the informant had also performed her marriage with one Manoj Bharti in the Year 2017 as would manifest from her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Surajgarha P. S. Case No.46 of 2018 and from the first marriage, informant also had a child. It is thus submitted that since appellants were objecting the marriage of the informant with their son on the ground that informant without divorcing her first husband performed her marriage with their son, as such, they came to be implicated in the instant case.
4. The learned Special P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.684 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026 3/3 appeal, but then, t the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant is not in a position to rebut the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that informant had earlier performed her marriage with Manoj Kumar Bharti as would manifest from Annexure-3 to the appeal.
5. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the order dated 20.01.2026 is set-aside.
6. The appeal stands allowed.
7. The appellants, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of eight weeks, are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Smt. Rajani Kumari, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhisarai in connection with ABP No.1478 of 2025 arising out of Lakhisarai Mahila P. S. Case No.65 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T