Najrana Kaushar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55227 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-502 Year-2025 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Najrana kaushar Daughter of Mohamad Alamgir Ansari Mohalla -Noongola East Hajipur Ps- Hajipur Town District- Vaishali P/A- Wife of of Md. Saddam Ansari, Resident of Village- Deulbara Collery Balugan Ward no. 17, Ps- Deul Bera, Dist- Angul (Odisa) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the uncle of the informant, Shabbir Alam was killed by some unknown miscreants and a suspicion was raised with regard to the informant of some unknown persons who were involved in the brokerage of land.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be evident from the first information report itself that the
2/4 same has been lodged against unknown miscreants and no suspicion, whatsoever, has been raised against the petitioner or her family members. It is only during the course of investigation that the suspicion came to be raised as against the petitioner and other and that too the petitioner's involvement remains confined to a conspiracy angle. It has further been submitted that during the course of investigation, CCTV footage of the place of occurrence also shows that it was one Md. Ansari @ Dablu who was the assailant and the present petitioner has only been implicated as she happens to be the sister of the said Md. Ansari. It is also a fact that a land dispute is going on between the parties and the further material of confessional statement of co-accused before the police showing the complicity of the petitioner also in the planning of the offence, would have no evidentiary value. The petitioner is a lady and has been languishing in custody since 07.05.2025 with no criminal antecedents.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that substantive material has transpired during the course of investigation and the learned counsel for the informant has referred specifically to paragraphs no.24, 25 and
3/4 26 to contend that the petitioner was seen on the gate of her house when some suspicious activity of handing over of some material was being done to Md. Ansari. He has also submitted that the case has already been committed and it is pending on the point of framing of charge.
6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case rests on the confessional statement of co-accused before the police on the basis of which the petitioner, who is a lady having no criminal antecedent, has been made accused, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No.502 of 2025 subject to the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors will be his own blood relative, preferably, father, mother, brother, sister and/or his wife.
(ii) The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court on the date fixed for framing of charge and in case of her absence, the Trial Court shall have the liberty to cancel the bail bond.
4/4 (iii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned court concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) anand/- U T