Muskan Ansari @ Shawanawaj Hussain @ Muskan @ Shahanawaj Hussain v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69902 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2025 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran ====================================================== Muskan Ansari @ Shawanawaj Hussain @ Muskan @ Shahanawaj hussain S/o Najir @ Najir Hussain R/o Village - Rai Sirsa, P.S - Bheldi, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-10-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 126(2), 109 and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that while he was returning from a birthday party on 17.04.2025, at about 01:30 a.m., he was intercepted by 4-5 unknown criminals and they fired twice and one bullet hit his thigh and thereafter accused persons took his chain and cash of Rs.25,000/-. Further, one accused was identified as Muskan Ansari (petitioner) and claims that he can identify the other accused persons also.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69902 of 2025(2) dt.13-10-2025 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that it does not appear probable that informant at 01:30 a.m. in the night while returning form the birthday party would have been carrying Rs.25,000/-. It is next submitted that petitioner was also an invitee in the said birthday party, as such, it does not appear probable that petitioner would have participated in the occurrence as the informant was known to him.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that since petitioner was known to the informant, as such, for the present, it does not appear probable that petitioner would have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that it is an admitted fact that informant was shot and investigation in the case is continuing and petitioner has criminal antecedent and if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69902 of 2025(2) dt.13-10-2025 3/3 Bheldi P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T