Anwar @ Alam Ansari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12891 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Anwar @ Alam Ansari S/o- Lukman Ansari @ Lokman Ansari R/vMaraghiya Ps- Barari District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate :
Kumar Abhishek, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant :
Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate :
Mr. Amitabh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 21.11.2025 in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 230 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) of the BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Ankesh Kumar in his written report addressed to SHO, Parbatta alleged that his friend namely Gopal Kumar brought a person at his residence who disclosed his name Anwar, claimed that he can double the money by magic. It is further alleged by informant that on 23.05.2025 Anwar came at his residence and
2/4 he gave Rs. 20,00,000-/ to Anwar. It is further alleged that Anwar told informant to come with a candle and when informant went to get a candle Anwar changed the bundle of cash and further left one bundle of cash in room and asked informant that he would come back after a while but he did not returned despite repeated call.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the present case is a very unique case although the petitioner is named in the FIR. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 23.05.2025 but the present FIR has been instituted on 20.06.2025 i.e., after a delay of about one month which suggests that it is an after thought FIR instituted so as to implicate the petitioner falsely. It is next submitted that nothing has been recovered from the house of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the house of one Gopal Kumar who is happened to be the friend of the informant who has introduced the petitioner with the informant. It is next submitted that police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and charge has been framed against the petitioner on 11.03.2026 which suggests that the investigation stands concluded and the petitioner is in custody since
3/4 21.11.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that although the petitioner has mentioned his one criminal antecedent but, in fact, the petitioner has antecedent of more than one case other than the case mentioned in paragraph-3 of the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the house of one Gopal Kumar who is happened to be the friend of the informant and police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and charge has been framed against the petitioner on 11.03.2026, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateI, Khagaria in connection with in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 230 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
4/4 and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T