Rehana Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63092 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

Rehana Khatoon W/o- Soaib Ansari @ Shoaib Ansari Resident of VillageAziznagar Ward No.5, P.S.- Punaura, District- Sitamarhi 2.

Laila Khatoon wife of Md. Arshad Ansari @Arshad Ansari Resident of Village- Aziznagar Ward No.5, P.S.- Punaura, District- Sitamarhi 3.

Md. Tausheem Ansari @ Tahseen Ansari son of Arshad Ansari @Md. Arshad Ansari Resident of Village- Aziznagar Ward No.5, P.S.- Punaura, District- Sitamarhi 4.

Sohra Khatoon @ Farzana wife of Tausheem Ansari @ Tahseen Ansari Resident of Village- Aziznagar Ward No.5, P.S.- Punaura, District- Sitamarhi 5.

Md. Arshad Ansari son of Taiyab Ansari Resident of Village- Aziznagar Ward No.5, P.S.- Punaura, District- Sitamarhi 6.

Md. Vasim Ansari son of Arshad Ansari @ Md. Arshad Ansari Resident of Village- Aziznagar Ward No.5, P.S.- Punaura, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per F.I.R., on 10.12.2023, informant's son had gone to his Sasural for Bidagiri of his wife, but till 11.12.2023, he did not return and when informant inquired from neighbours

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63092 of 2024(10) dt.24-06-2025 2/3 of the Sasural of his son, he came to know that his son is missing from his Sasural. Informant suspects that petitioners have kidnapped his son for committing his murder.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Only suspicion has been raised against them. As a matter of fact, petitioner no. 1 had lodged a case against informant and others, vide Punaura P.S. Case No. 18/2024, under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and only with a view to put pressure on petitioners, this false and concocted case has been lodged. Moreover, the case has been compromised between the parties. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

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

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Punaura P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63092 of 2024(10) dt.24-06-2025 3/3 Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T