Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29427 (PAT)

Kaniz Fatma @ Rahat @ Kaniz Abdul Bari Shaikh v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./57165/2026 · 2026-08-19

Soni Shrivastava

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57165 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2026 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Kaniz Fatma @ Rahat @ Kaniz Abdul Bari Shaikh W/o Md. Shahabuddin R/o Vill- Musapur, (Gani Tarauni), P.S.- Bahadurpur, Dist.- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kedar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 2 19-08-2026 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 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) and 109 of the B.N.S. 3. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner along with other assaulted the informant due to which he sustained injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 31.01.2026, for which the fardbeyan was recorded on 02.02.2026, whereas the formal FIR was registered on 09.02.2026, i.e. after nine days of the occurrence for which no explanation is forthcoming. It is further submitted that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57165 of 2026(2) dt.19-08-2026 2/3 petitioner happens to be the wife of the informant and there was an earlier litigation between them inasmuch as the petitioner had filed a 498(A) case against him and only to counter the same and to create his defence the informant has filed the present case against his own wife. No offence under Section 109 of the B.N.S. could be made out in the facts of the case and further, the injuries are in the nature of laceration, which appeared to be simple in nature. 5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the basis of allegations made in the First Information Report. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the delay in the FIR, coupled with the fact that the petitioner and the informant are wife and husband, let the above named petitioner, who is a lady and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57165 of 2026(2) dt.19-08-2026 3/3 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. ayush/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T