Patna High Court
Maheshwar DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners, directing them to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties.
Summary
Maheshwar Das and his wife Shikhi Devi were arrested in connection with a kidnapping case (Kotwali P.S. Case No.291 of 2024) alleged under Sections 363, 365, 369 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the couple, along with others, abducted the petitioners' three‑month‑old son, while the defence argued that the accused are innocent and that the only incriminating material is a confessional statement by Milan Das implicating other persons. The petitioners highlighted contradictions between the FIR, the informant’s statements and the confessional statement, and pointed out their clean criminal record. After hearing both sides, the Court considered the nature of the offences, the inconsistencies in the evidence, and the length of custodial detention. The Court decided to grant bail to both petitioners on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties each, subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite being charged with kidnapping and related offences under the IPC.
- Whether the evidence on record, including the FIR, informant’s statements and a confessional statement, justifies continued judicial custody.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 365, 369
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- contradictory statements
- custodial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16048 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-291 Year-2024 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Maheshwar Das S/O Late Bhanu Das Resident of Village- Thahra Gopalpur,
P.S- Pusa, District- Samastipur.
2. Shikhi Devi W/O Maheshwar Das Resident of Village- Thahra Gopalpur,
P.S- Pusa, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in connection
with Kotwali P.S. Case No.291 of 2024 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 369/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant
lives with his wife and six children in his tent. On 29.04.2024,
he was sleeping with his family. At 6 A.M. when he woke, he
found that his three month old son was missing. He asked his
wife but she was not knowing about the infant. After this, he
started searching his son and he came to know that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16048 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
Maheshwar Das (petitioner no.1), his wife (petitioner no.2),
his daughter and Milan Das have stolen his son.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and
have committed no offence. They have been falsely
implicated in this case. During course of investigation, Milan
Das has given his confessional statement and has stated that in
connivance with Lagendra Mahto @ Bhagat Jee, they were
indulged in lifting the infants. The missing infant has not yet
been recovered. There is nothing except confessional
statement. The name of Lalita Devi and Milan Das is there in
the F.I.R. but from perusal of the F.I.R., it is not clear as to
how did the informant know the names of these accused
persons. From perusal of para 64 of the case diary, it is clear
that the informant has disclosed to the I.O. during
investigation that on the night of the occurrence, Maheshwar
Das and Bhagat Jee have come to him at about 3-4 A.M. and
they have awaken him for the consumption of liquor. He has
further stated that he believes that Bhagat Jee has stolen the
boy and has concealed him somewhere. From this statement
of the informant, it is clear that there is major contradiction in
F.I.R., the confessional statement and the statement of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16048 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
informant. A statement has been made in para 3 of the petition
that petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Petitioner no.1,
Maheshwar das is languishing in judicial custody since
03.05.2024 whereas petitioner no.2, Shikhi Devi is
languishing in judicial custody since 24.07.2024.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
APP for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as
period of custody, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioners on bail. The above named petitioners are directed
to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rs. ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patna in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case
No.291 of 2024.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…