Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26157/2025rejected

Muslim Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

2025-10-30Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26157 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2022 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== MUSLIM ANSARI S/O SAHBAJ ANSARI R/O VILL.- DIBANI BANJARWA, P.S.- TAREYA SUJAN, DIST.- KUSHINAGAR, U.P. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh For the State :

Mr. Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 78 of 2022 registered under Sections 302, 201, 120(B)/34 of the IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, the deceased is wife of the petitioner and her dead body was recovered near Gandak Canal on 23.03.2022. According to inquest report, the head of the dead body and both the hands were severed. After postmortem, the dead body was cremated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and is innocent. He was working in abroad and for her maintenance, he used to send Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26157 of 2025(7) dt.30-10-2025 2/2 24,000/- per month. He has also submitted that a missing report was already lodged by the petitioner before recovery of her dead body and the lady was of a questionable character.

5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. The inquest report, as described in paragraph 79 of the case diary, shows that the head and the limbs of the dead body were severed. She was brutally murdered. The petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, questioned the chastity of his wife. The mother of the deceased has stated that the relation between the petitioner and his wife was not cordial. The process under section 83 has already been issued against the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T