Patna High Court
Md. Pannu @ Md. ShanawazversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court granted pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner, directing release upon bond and verification of antecedent, as he was not shown to be involved in the alleged offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Pannu, a co‑villager, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case (Mahua PS Case No. 374 of 2023) involving serious offences such as kidnapping, dowry demand, and offences under the POCSO Act. He asserted that he was falsely implicated, had no relationship with the complainant or the accused, and possessed a clean record. The victim had voluntarily married one of the co‑accused, and anticipatory bail had already been granted to other co‑accused by a coordinate bench. The State opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the charges. After considering the submissions and the FIR, the court held that the petitioner, being merely a co‑villager with no proven involvement, should be released on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent and conditions under Sections 438(2) CrPC/482(2) BNSS. The bail order will lapse if the petitioner is found to have other criminal cases.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, a co‑villager with no proven involvement, is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged.
- Whether the conditions under Sections 438(2) CrPC and 482(2) BNSS are satisfied for granting bail.
- Whether the court should verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent before finalizing the bail order.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307/34, 342, 363, 366A, 498A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- kidnapping
- dowry prohibition
- POCSO
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20416 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Md. Pannu @ Md. Shanawaz S/o Md. Shamim Resident of Village- Mahua
Mukundpur, PS- Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X W/o Y R/o vill - Girbara, P.O- Rashulpur Fateh, P.S.- Mahua, Distt.-
Vaishali
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Mahua P.S. Case No. 374 of 2023 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 498A, 342 and 307/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., accused
persons kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and
thereafter co-accused Shamshad performed marriage with her.
After some time, the accused persons subjected the daughter of
the informant to various sorts of torture due to non-fulfillment
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20416 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
of demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the case. Petitioner is not the family
member rather he is co-villager having no concern either with
the complainant or the accused persons. The victim on her own
performed marriage with co-accused Shamshad and they have
been blessed with a baby girl. The petitioner has clean
antecedent. Co-accused Rounak Khatoon and Md. Mokhtar who
are married nanad and father-in-law of the victim have already
been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 09.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
82665 of 2024.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the F.I.R. the petitioner who is the co-villager is nowhere
concerned either with the complainant or the accused persons
and the victim on her own performed marriage with co-accused
Shamshad and the married Nanad and father-in-law of the
victim have been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20416 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
Bench of this Court, the petitioner, above named, who is the co-
villager, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period
of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Vaishali at Hajipur in
connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 374 of 2023, subject to
the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C / 482(2)
BNSS.
7. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner
is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para-
3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its force.
8. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.