Patna High Court
Md. Arman @ Mohammad ArmanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed the petitioners’ application for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of relatives from Dilgouri village, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging kidnapping and theft of Rs. 2,00,000 and gold jewellery. The prosecution’s case is based on an informant’s claim that his wife was abducted by the petitioners, but the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. indicates she left her husband’s house due to abuse and was not kidnapped. The petitioners highlighted a 19‑day delay between the alleged incident (19‑02‑2026) and the FIR (02‑03‑2026) and asserted their clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering the victim’s statement and the lack of substantive evidence, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. negates the prosecution’s case of kidnapping and theft.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 140(3), 183
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- false implication
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal conspiracy
- victim statement
- delay in FIR
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33281 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2026 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Md. Arman @ Mohammad Arman, S/o Md. Rustam Rayeen @ Md. Bablu,
R/o Village- Dilgouri, P.S- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.
2. Gudiya Devi @ Afsana Khatoon, W/o Md. Rustam Rayeen @ Md. Bablu,
R/o Village- Dilgouri, P.S- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.
3. Md. Bablu @ Md. Rustam Rayeen, S/o Barati Miyan @ Barati Rayeen @
Md. Barati, R/o Village- Dilgouri, P.S- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.
4. Muskan Ajmeri @ Muskan, D/o Md. Bablu @ Md. Rustam Rayeen, R/o
Village- Dilgouri, P.S- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.
5. Md. Chand @ Md. Nisar, S/o Barati Miyan @ Md. Barati @ Barati Rayeen,
R/o Village- Dilgouri, P.S- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.
6. Muskan Ajmeri @ Ajmeri Khatoon, D/o Md. Bablu @ Md. Rayeen, W/o
Md. Abid, R/o Maidan Chowk Koda, P.S.- Koda, Distt.- Munger. At present
residing at Village- Dilgouri, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ankit Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026,
registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 137(2) and 140(3)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that he found his wife missing on 19.02.2026 and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33281 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
FIR named accused persons including the petitioners, in
criminal conspiracy, have lured his wife, and she had gone with
them along with a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- which were withdrawn
from the bank besides gold jewelries kept in the house.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case on false
and concocted story of kidnapping. It has been further submitted
that though the date of occurrence is stated to be 19.02.2026 but
the FIR was lodged on 02.03.2026 i.e. after a delay of almost 19
days. It has next been submitted that the victim/wife of
informant was recovered and she in her statement recorded
under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., has not at all supported the case
of prosecution rather she has categorically stated that she did not
tell anybody that she was going to her myka at Gaya by train. In
her statement, the victim/wife of informant has further stated
that it was because of her husband/informant, who used to
assault and abuse her, she had gone to her parents house. It has
also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that all the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are proved to be false
on account of the statement of the victim/wife of informant
recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. It has lastly been
submitted that the petitioners have clean antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33281 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let
the petitioners, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of their arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount, each to the satisfaction of the concerned
Court/successor Court where the case is pending in connection
with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with corresponding Section
482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their
close relative and the other shall be a local resident.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33281 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedents of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is
found that they have concealed their criminal antecedents,
the Court concerned shall take necessary steps for
cancellation of their bail bonds. However, the acceptance
of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall
not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/deepak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.