Muslim Ansari @ Md. Musili Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25349 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Muslim Ansari @ Md. Musili Ansari, Gender-Male, aged about 85 years, Son of Late Kallu Miyan, Resident of village - Salempur, Police Station - Muffasil, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Roshan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Rajiv Nayan, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No. 312 of 2023 dated 13.03.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 427, 385, 387 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have demolished the boundary wall of the informant and his friend Dilip Kumar's lands which were purchased from Baby Tetari Khatoon and her six sons in the name of the informant's wife Usha Kumari and in the name of his friend Dilip Kumar's wife Satbhama Devi respectively

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25349 of 2025(2) dt.17-04-2025 2/3 through the registered sale deeds. It is further alleged that Md. Irsad Ahmad, Muslim Ansari (petitioner), Fekani Khatoon, Saidu Khatoon and Kundan Kumar Singh also demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- as rangdari. It is further alleged that the co-accused Upendra Prasad and Kundan Kumar Singh sold the aforesaid land by making forged illegal deed with the help of Muslim Ansari (petitioner), Fekni Khatoon, Saidu Khatoon and Irshad Ansari.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there is land dispute between the parties. The petitioner has neither demanded any ransom money from the informant nor demolished the boundary wall of the informant and he has no concern with the co-accused persons. There is no direct or indirect cogent evidence against the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is a case of civil nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The other co-accused person, Md. Irshad Ahmad, has already been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 57298 of 2024 under order dated 27.08.2024. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25349 of 2025(2) dt.17-04-2025 3/3 since 14.04.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Gaya Mufassil P.S. Case No. 312 of 2023.

7. The application stands allowed (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U.K./- U T