Bibi Ruksana @ Munni @ Ruksana v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22626 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1054 Year-2025 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Bibi Ruksana @ Munni @ Ruksana W/o Md. Shahid @ Chapariya Resident of Village- Sulindabad ward no. 06/13, P.S.- Saharsa, Dist.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 1054 of 2025, dated 12.09.2025, lodged under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNS, 2023") and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending before the Court of C.J.M., Saharsa.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against three named accused persons, including the present petitioner. The specific allegation against the present petitioner is that, on demand, she brought a gun from the house and handed it over to her son, by which firing was made in the chest, due to which the victim died.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22626 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel further submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean. Counsel further submits that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Counsel further submits that the allegation of firing is against the other accused persons.

5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that though the allegation of firing is not against the petitioner, there was a common intention, and it is for this reason the gun was brought by the petitioner and handed over to the co-accused, who fired.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U T