Afrin Mohammad @ Munna v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87846 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1155 Year-2024 Thana- SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Afrin Mohammad @ Munna S/O Late Sakim Nadaf@Late Sakim R/O village- Mehsual, P.S and District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Md. Humayu Son of Late Sakim Nadar Resident of village- Mehsaul Tole, Hushena Ward No. 26, P.S.and District-Sitamarhi 3.

Najmun Khaton Wife of Md. Humayu Resident of village- Mehsaul Tole, Hushena Ward No. 26, P.S.and District-Sitamarhi 4.

Md. Haidar Son of Late Wasir Resident of village Hushena P.S.- and District- Sitamarhi 5.

Sadath Hussain @ Khojwa Son of Md. Haidar Resident of village Hushena P.S.- and District- Sitamarhi 6.

Md. Jubair Son of Late Ali Aakat Resident of village Harpurva, P.S. Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi 7.

Md. Taukir Mansoori @ Md. Taukir Son of Jubair @ Md. Jubair Resident of village - Harpurva, P.S. - Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Saroj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was the complainant before the court concerned, had never agreed to receive an amount of Rs. 64,500/-, as has been recorded in the impugned order.

3. This Court is not in a position to assess whether

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87846 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026 2/2 the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner reflects the correct state of affairs. In such circumstances, the appropriate and efficacious course for the petitioner would be to raise this issue before the court concerned which granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to opposite party nos. 2 to 7.

4. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order granting bail to the opposite parties, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to agitate his grievances before the court concerned which granted anticipatory bail to opposite party nos. 2 to 7.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present application stands disposed of.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T