Ashraf Ansari, @ Asraf Ansari @ Md. Asraf Ansari @ Asraf Ali Ansari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16910 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
Ashraf Ansari, @ Asraf Ansari @ Md. Asraf Ansari @ Asraf Ali Ansari S/O Sahadat Resident of Village-Sitamarhi, P.S. Garhi,District-Jamui. 2.
Amir Ansari Son of Ashraf Ansari, @Asraf Ansari @ Md. Asraf Ansari @ Asraf Ali Ansari Resident of Village-Sitamarhi, P.S. Garhi,District-Jamui. 3.
Sarifa Khatoon W/o Ashraf Ansari Asraf Ansari @ Md. Asraf Ansari @ Asraf Ali Ansari Resident of Village-Sitamarhi, P.S. Garhi,District-Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Safia Khatoon D/o Md. Mujtafa Resident of Village-Mimain, P.S. Khaira, District-Jamui ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Hafiz Shahbaz Arif For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs.Madhuri Lata Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 89, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant was married with co-accused Salman according to Muslim customs and rites on 23.04.2024 and it is alleged that when informant went to her matrimonial house, she was subjected to cruelty and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16910 of 2025(3) dt.30-06-2025 2/3 harassment by her in-laws members due to non-fulfillment of Rs. 2 lakhs, as additional demand of dowry. It is further alleged that on 30.09.2024 at 10 PM, co-accused Gulbama Khatoon and Ladli Khatoon assaulted on the stomach and private part of informant, causing injury in her private part, but anyhow she (opposite party no. 2/informant) could save her life.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to matrimonial dispute between informant and her husband (coaccused Salman), this false and concocted case has been lodged. Petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is brotherin-law (Bhaisur) and petitioner no. 3 is mother-in-law of the complainant. Thrust of the accusation is against husband of the informant, who is already in custody. Petitioners are separate in mess and property and have got no concern with family affairs of the couple.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners.
6. However, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioners, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16910 of 2025(3) dt.30-06-2025 3/3 thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., District - Jamui in connection with Jamui Mahila P.S. Case No. 50 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T