Ayub Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69901 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-389 Year-2023 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Ayub Ansari S/O Habib Ansari R/O Village- Masadhi, P.S- Ramgarh, DistrictKaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-08-2025 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 389 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Brief facts of the case is that, the marriage of the informant's daughter was solemnized with the petitioner on 18.06.2021. An amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was given on the occassion of marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner started torturing her and also made false allegations regarding her chastity. Since the night of 09.09.2023, telephonic contact could not be made with the informant's daughter. The informant has firm belief that the petitioner has intentionally committed murder of his daughter and disappeared her dead body.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that wife of the petitioner became traceless from Chennai, where she was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69901 of 2024(7) dt.28-08-2025 2/2 residing with her husband (the petitioner). He has further submitted that she had illicit relation with someone else and according to his submission, she fled away from her house. Annexing the printouts of some WhatsApp chats, it has been submitted by learned counsel that these are printouts of the chat with the person with whom, she had love and affection.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim became traceless from the petitioner's house in Chennai, but he did not even take pain to inform the incident anywhere.

6. The printouts of the WhatsApp chats are also suspicious, and from a bare perusal of those printouts, it does not reveal that from whose mobile, those printouts have been taken.

7. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T