Muskan @ Najani Vs The State of Bihar

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13343 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh For the Informant : Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20901 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan For the Informant : Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey ======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

4 15-05-2026

¶21

Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel

¶22

for the petitioners, Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20901 of 2026 and Mr. Uday Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13343 of 2026.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13343 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026 2/4

¶24

Petitioners seek bail who is in custody since 19.10.2025 and 13.10.2025 respectively in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 269 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS.

¶25

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant Md. Amiruddin Ansari is that on 13.10.2025 at about 07:00 hours, the dead body of his son Gupharan Ansari was laid in the Babhana Sikariya Shakurabad road near the Sikariya more at bank of bridge and on basis of information, he went there then he saw that the dead body of his son laid with blood on neck was cutting. Further, it is alleged that marriage of his son (deceased) was held on 29.10.2025 and he also suspected that Muskan Maim and her husband and unknown person as well as partner were doing murder his son who were doing work in nurshing home with the deceased son. Further, it has also been alleged that his son was sweet relation with Muskan Maim and on this matter the husband and family member of Muskan Maim were protested therefore this alleged occurrence was done by the accused-persons on the basis of which the present case was instituted against the petitioner as well as other accused-persons.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13343 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026 3/4

¶28

initially the petitioners were not named in the FIR and the name of the petitioners transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person, namely, Pramod Kumar, who has stated that co-accused person, namely, Uttam Kumar has cut the neck of the deceased and the petitioners were accompanied with the co-accused person, namely, Uttam Kumar. It is next submitted that there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act against the petitioners and similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Pramod Kumar, who has confessed the name of the petitioners has been granted bail vide order dated 02.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2919 of 2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioners are in custody since 19.10.2025 and 13.10.2025 respectively.

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

¶30

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 269 of 2025, subject

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13343 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026 4/4

¶32

to the following conditions:-

¶33

i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶34

ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶35

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶36

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶37

Gaurav Sinha/-

¶38

U T

Muskan @ Najani v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muskan @ Najani v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Koda @ Suvit Kada Vs The State of Bihar

Abhiraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Akchhay Manjhi @ Akchhay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nirdosh Kumar @ Nirdosh Yadav @ Nirdosh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Vivek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar