Patna High Court
CR. MISC./53732/2026 of Fakira @ Sarafat Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53732 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2026 Thana- BAISI District- Purnia ====================================================== Fakira @ Sarafat S/O Md. Siddique @ Md. Sidik Res. of village- Simaliya, P.S.- Dalkola, District-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53732 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2026 Thana- BAISI District- Purnia ======================================================
Fakira @ Sarafat S/O Md. Siddique @ Md. Sidik Res. of village- Simaliya, P.S.- Dalkola, District- Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv
Mr.Bidhu Ranjan, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv
Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
19-08-2026
1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.K Agrawal; learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 138 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The SHO and the Investigating Officer of the case, in compliance of the order dated 17.8.2026 are present in the Court.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her husband had a puffed rice mill in the village, further on 9.5.2026 he had gone to bus stand for dropping his brother, who was going to Patna at 8 PM, but did not return, on 10.5.2026 informant received an information that a dead body is lying, thus she reached the place of occurrence and saw the neck of her husband slit by knife, thus alleges that petitioner (her nandosi) killed him as earlier he had quarrelled and threatened her husband that he will be killed over dispute relating to the puffed rice mill.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case based on suspicion by the informant, who is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that petitioner is husband of the sister of the deceased. It is further submitted that there may be some dispute but then alleging that petitioner killed the husband of the informant over dispute relating to the puffed rice mill is an exaggerated allegation. It is also submitted that petitioner had no quarrel with the deceased and the puffed rice mill belonged to the deceased and petitioner being husband of his sister had no share in the mill. It is next submitted that even by killing the deceased, the petitioner would not have gained anything, i.e., the petitioner would not have become the owner of the puffed rice mill. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation also nothing transpired connecting the petitioner with the offence except suspicion.
6. On query of the court from the SHO and the Investigating Officer of the case that what transpired connecting the petitioner with the offence leading the Dy.S.P to find the case true, on which it is submitted that witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution but then fairly submits that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hand, though at para-3 of the anticipatory bail application, it is pleaded that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent when petitioner has antecedent of one case being Baisi PS Case No. 194 of 2024, on which learned APP submits that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands, disentitles himself from claiming any relief.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Baisi P.S. Case No. 189 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
9. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail bonds shall be confirmed forthwith.
10. The personal appearance of the SHO and the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.
Sumit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T