IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86399 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jamui ======================================================

Md Ajmal Ansari S/O Hasanu Miyan Resident of Vill.- Islamnagar, Sitamadih, P.S.- Garhi, Distt.- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Rabiya Khatoon W/O Md Ajmal Ansari Resident of Vill.- Islamnagar, (Sitamadih,) P.O.- Islamnagar, P.S.- Garhi, Distt.- Jamui ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 10-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498A, 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was taken up on 08.01.2026, when notices were issued on opposite party no.2. It is next submitted that from perusal of the office report dated 23.02.2026, it would manifest that the same records that the ordinary notice has been received by the daughter of the opposite party no.2.

4. Since notice has been received by the daughter of the opposite party no.2, hence it is deemed to be validly served.

5. It is next submitted that petitioner, being husband, has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that the informant along with the children are still living in the same house where the petitioner resides. It is also submitted that petitioner is bearing the expense of the opposite party no.2 and his three children whether it be educational expense or expense relating to their livelihood. It is also submitted that specific pleading to that effect has been made at Para-12 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that at Para-11, specific pleading has been made denying the allegation of second marriage. It is also submitted that since the opposite party no.2 is staying in the same house where the petitioner resides and petitioner is taking care of opposite party no.2 and the children, as such, the opposite party no.2 even after receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest.

6. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that though a specific pleading has been made that opposite party no.2 along with the children are staying in the same house where the petitioner resides and petitioner is taking care of their financial needs including education and livelihood, but then, the said pleading may be ploy, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he has instruction to make submission that in the event, if it is found what has been pleaded at Para-12 is incorrect i.e. petitioner is not providing financial, educational help to the opposite party no.2 and the children, in that event, the opposite party no.2 shall be free to file an application before this Court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail application, if granted.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail- bonds in the sum 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 Jamui Mahila P. S. Case No.67 of 2022, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

vikash/-

U T