Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Salman MiyaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
REJECTED

Holding

The court held that the seriousness of the allegations and the corroborative evidence warranted the denial of regular bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Salman Miya, was arrested in connection with an FIR alleging kidnapping, child marriage, and sexual assault of a minor girl, invoking Sections 87 and 3(5) of the BNS. He claimed he was falsely implicated due to village politics and that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS indicated she went with him voluntarily. The State opposed bail, presenting the victim’s birth certificate showing she was about 15, and citing corroborative witness testimony. The court examined the FIR, case diary, and the victim’s statement, finding the allegations serious and the evidence sufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the petition for regular bail was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail pending trial for offences under Sections 87 and 3(5) of the BNS involving kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor.
  • Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS negates the element of kidnapping and consent.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • kidnapping
  • child marriage
  • rape
  • minor
  • false implication
  • political vendetta

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22491 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2025 Thana- MOHAMMADPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Salman Miya, aged about 24 years (Male) Son of Saheb Miya @ Ibrahim
                 Miya @ Ibrahim Mian, Resident of village - Amarpura, P.S.- Mohammadpur,
                 Dist.- Gopalganj.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :     Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
                 MALVIYA
                                       ORAL ORDER
3   19-05-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State through virtual mode, perused the case diary

                   and also perused the statement of the victim girl recorded under

                   Section 183 of the BNSS.

                                2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for

                   the offence punishable under Sections 87 and 3(5) of the BNS.

                                3. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner and other

                   co-accused persons abducted the minor daughter of the

                   informant with an intention to marry her.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty

                   village politics. He next submits that the victim has recorded the

                   statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and stated that she

                   went with the petitioner on her own sweet will, he has got clean

                   antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition and he is in custody
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22491 of 2026(3) dt.19-05-2026
                                                      2/2




                    since 20.11.2025.

                                 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                    bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is direct

                    involvement for kidnapping of the minor daughter of the

                    informant.

                                 6. On perusal of the first information report, case

                    diary, impugned order dated 11.03.2026 and in para-24 of the

                    case diary, containing birth certificate of the victim issued by

                    Head-master of school, in which, date of birth of the victim is

                    mentioned as 22.05.2010 from which, victim is aged about 15

                    years and further alleged that the petitioner has performed her

                    marriage with minor girl and also having sexual relationship

                    with the minor girl to constitute an offence of rape, the case is

                    pending for evidence and several other witnesses have also

                    supported the case of the prosecution, so I am no inclined to

                    grant regular bail of the petitioner.

                                 7. Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby

                    rejected.



                                         (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Brajesh Kumar/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.