Patna High Court

Musharraf Alam @ Md. Musharra AlamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 2 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The petitioner is entitled to bail.

Summary

Musharraf Alam applied for bail in a case registered under Section 97 of the B.N.S., 2023 for allegedly abetting his wife in taking away a four‑month‑old baby. The prosecution alleged that the informant’s wife removed the child and the petitioner was implicated as the husband. The petitioner contended that he had no knowledge of the act, was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that there was an unexplained six‑day delay in filing the complaint, with CCTV footage not identifying him. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. After considering the delay, lack of identification, and the petitioner’s clean record, the Court ordered that bail be granted on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offence under Section 97 of the B.N.S., 2023
Whether the six‑day delay in filing the complaint and lack of CCTV identification justify granting bail
Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of involvement and clean criminal record warrant bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S., 2023 — s. 97

Subjects

bail
Section 97
B.N.S., 2023
delay in filing
CCTV evidence
false implication
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20769 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2025 Thana- Salmari District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Musharraf Alam @ Md. Musharra Alam S/O Md. Gayasuddin R/O Vill.-
                 Belbari, P.S- Salmari, Dist- Katihar

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Salmari P.S. Case No. 169 of 2025 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Section 97 of the B.N.S., 2023.

                                3.The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the wife

                   of the petitioner has taken away the four-month-old baby of the

                   informant. On 08.12.2025, the informant searched for her baby,

                   but she could not find him and has filed this case on 14.12.2025.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

                   committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this

                   case. He also submits that the petitioner is the husband of the

                   lady who is alleged to have taken away the child of the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20769 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     informant. He is unaware of the fact that any child was being

                     taken by his wife. He further submits that there is a delay of six

                     days in filing of the case and the delay is not explained. He

                     further submits that from perusal of the case diary, it will

                     transpire that in CCTV footage also, the petitioner was not

                     identified and the main thrust of allegation is against his wife.

                     Moreover, a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition

                     that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing

                     in judicial custody since 24.12.2025.

                                  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, this Court is

                     inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                     petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                     bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

                     of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief

                     Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Salmari P.S.

                     Case No. 169 of 2025.


                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…