IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40391 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2024 Thana- PHENHARA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1. Taukir Son of Sk. Rahim Village- West Phenhara, P.S- Phenhara, Dist- East Champaran 2. Ujjale son of Md. Hasim Village- West Phenhara, P.S- Phenhara, Dist- East Champaran 3. Israful @ Md. Hasim Son of Md. Talim Village- West Phenhara, P.S- Phenhara, Dist- East Champaran 4. Gyasuddin @ Meraj @ Langda son of Md. Talim Village- West Phenhara, P.S- Phenhara, Dist- East Champaran 5. Talbuh Khatoon @ Talbun Khatoon Wife of Late Md. Rahim Village- West Phenhara, P.S- Phenhara, Dist- East Champaran 6. Khushboo Khatun wife of Taukir Village- West Phenhara, P.S- Phenhara, Dist- East Champaran 7. Rifat Khatoon @ Rifhat jahan Wife of Tamane Village- West Phenhara, P.S- Phenhara, Dist- East Champaran 8. Sabina Khatoon Daughter of Late Rahim Village- West Phenhara, P.S- Phenhara, Dist- East Champaran 9. Sabila @ Sabya Khatoon Daughter of Late Rahim Village- West Phenhara, P.S- Phenhara, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 03-09-2025 Heard Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Sharda Kumari, learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No. 183 of 2024/G.R. Case No. 7197 of 2024 for the offence under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 75, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) and 103(2)(1) of the BNS lodged on 16.12.2024 by the informant. 3. As per the prosecution case on 15-12-2024, while the informant along with her family members were at home, all the FIR named accused persons, namely, Md.Talim, Hasim, Tamanne, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40391 of 2025(3) dt.03-09-2025 2/4 Taukir, Javsir, Taufik, Ujale, Israful, Gyasuddin, Talbun khatoon, Khushbu Khatoon, Rifat khatoon arrived there armed with lathi, danda, farsa, sword and assaulted her husband Ekramul Shah. Md. Talim assaulted with farsa on his head, due to which he sustained cut injury on his head. All the family members were assaulted. It is further alleged that the accused persons pressed the neck of informant with intention to kill her, due to which she felt unconscious. Her locket was also snatched. They also took away Vivo phone worth Rs.15,000/-from the house of the informant. Accordingly, the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to land dispute between the parties and they have not committed any offence as alleged. Both the parties are agnates to each other. The main allegation of assault and overt-act is against co-accused, Md. Talim who is said to have assaulted with farsa on the head of the informant’s husband which proved to be fatal and led him to death. So far as allegations against these petitioners are concerned, there has been general and omnibus allegation against them. 5. On the other hand, learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail vehemently submitting that since process under Section 82 of the CrPC has been initiated against the petitioners, the application for anticipatory bail is not Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40391 of 2025(3) dt.03-09-2025 3/4 maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to counter the submissions of the learned APP, draws the attention of this Court towards an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Dubey v. The State of Madhaya Pradesh [Cr. Appeal No. 456 of 2024 (SLP (CRL) No. 13123/2024)] wherein at paragraph-8, it has been held as follows:- “Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the CrPC, it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail.” 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties and the fact there there is no allegation of any overt-act against these petitioners, both the parties are agnates having land dispute between them and the main allegation of assault is against Md. Talim who is said to be in custody, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. Let all the petitioners, above named, be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks, from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Ms. Alka Pandey, learned J.M- 1st Class, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40391 of 2025(3) dt.03-09-2025 4/4 Motihari, East Champaran/ the court concerned in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. perwez (Ajit Kumar, J) U T