Jahira Khatoon @ Jahida Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88630 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2025 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== 1.
Jahira Khatoon @ Jahida Khatoon S/o Md. Mokim R/o Village- Pirpainti Bazar, Police Station- Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur 2.
Md. Mokim S/o Late Md. Muslim R/o Village- Pirpainti Bazar, Police Station- Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pronoti Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The Investigating Officer of the case, in compliance of the order dated 11.03.2026, is present in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that her daughter about 8- 9 months back was married to Jishan, further after marriage, her daughter was tortured by the accused
2/4 persons and they demanded money and the victim used to disclose about the occurrence, further on 19.06.2025 at 8.00 P.M. the accused persons including the petitioners killed her daughter, accordingly on receiving information, the informant came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her daughter was lying and no one was present in the house.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that husband has not been made an accused in the instant case. It is further submitted that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence, in that event effort would have been made to dispose of the dead body with a view to conceal evidence, but then the dead body was lying in the house. It is also submitted that Md. Hussain and Gudia Khatoon had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 73788 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 17.11.2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the regular bail application of the petitioners. The learned APP, based on instruction of the Investigating Officer of the case, submits that
3/4 marriage of the deceased with Jishan was a love marriage and Jishan was working in Mumbai and it was in his absence that the occurrence of killing was committed in the house. It is also submitted that the postmortem report records- that the death was due to asphyxia and venous congestion caused due to combined effect of throttling and ligature strangulation." It is next submitted that Gudia Khatoon is married sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased and was staying separately while Md. Husain is brother of the husband of the deceased and is a young boy aged about 19 years. It is further submitted that husband was not present at the place of occurrence rather was in Mumbai and postmortem report records throttling as the cause of death and petitioners being in-laws were present in the house.
It is next submitted that charge sheet has been submitted, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is in custody since 18.08.2025 and petitioner no. 2 is in custody since 22.08.2025 and charges have been framed against them, on which the learned APP submits that since charges have been framed, the trial has commenced.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
8. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application
4/4 stands rejected.
9. The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T