Md. Aftab Ansari @ Lallu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25139 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2025 Thana- GARHI District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

Md. Aftab Ansari @ Lallu Son of Jamayat Ansari @ Jamayat Miya R/o Village - Katahara, P.S. -Amarpur, District - Banka. 2.

Rajeena Khatoon Wife of Md. Aftab Ansari @ Lallu R/o Village - Katahara, P.S. -Amarpur, District - Banka.

3.

Hazra Khatoon Wife of Md. Yunus Ansari R/o Village - Katahara, P.S. -Amarpur, District - Banka.

4.

Md. Islam @ Islam Ansari Son of Yunu Ansari R/o Village - Islamnagar, P.S. - Garhi, Dist. - Jamui.

5.

Rehana Khatoon @ Pato Khatoon W/o Abutabib R/o Village - Katahara, P.S. -Amarpur, District - Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anand Kishore Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner no. 4 namely, Md. Islam @ Islam Ansari, as during pendency of this case, he has already been arrested.

2. The permission so sought for is accorded. The anticipatory bail petition with respect to petitioner no. 4 namely, Md. Islam @ Islam Ansari is dismissed as withdrawn, having become infructuous.

2/4

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

4. The petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 apprehend their arrest in connection with Garhi P.S. Case No. 96 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 324(4), 118(1), 76, 79, 351(2), 352 of the B.N.S.

5. As per the prosecution story which has been lodged on the basis of the written statement submitted by the informant to the effect that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, all the accused persons including the petitioners started assaulting the informant, his sister, mother and uncle as a result of which they sustained injuries. When his brother Rustam Ansari came to save them, he was also assaulted. The accused persons also damaged his car by tangi and rod.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence. The petitioners and the informant are co-villagers and the present F.I.R. is counter blast of Garhi P.S. Case No. 97 of 2025 which has been lodged by father of petitioner no. 4 and husband of petitioner no. 3 against the informant and his family members. He further submits that the injuries have been found

3/4 to be simple in nature and this fact has been recorded by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Jamui in his order dated 05.01.2026. He further submits that the petitioners have got clean antecedent.

7. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

8. Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the records it appears that there is case and counter case in between the parties and there was a free fight among the parties. Considering these facts, let the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 5, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Jamui in connection with Garhi P.S. Case No. 96 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with further condition:

(1) The learned Court concerned shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation

4/4 of bail bonds of the petitioners. 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. (Ritesh Kumar, J) vinita/- U T