Patna High Court
Md. Saijada @Md. ShahjadaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court rejected the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Saijada and relatives, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a kidnapping case under Sections 137(2), 96, 303(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that they, along with others, abducted the minor daughter of an informant. The petitioners claimed innocence, clean antecedents, and that the informant was not an eye‑witness. The State opposed bail, highlighting the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., which identified the petitioners as kidnappers. The Court considered the specific accusations, seriousness of the offence and the victim’s statement, and consequently rejected the anticipatory bail application. The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners in a kidnapping case where the victim’s statement implicates them.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- Section 183 statement
- criminal procedure
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5203 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2025 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Md. Saijada @Md. Shahjada Son of Md. Munna @ Tufail Resident of
village- Dharmpur Bande P.S.- Shahpur Patori District -Samastipur
2. Md. Munna @ Tufail son of Md. Shammi Resident of village- Dharmpur
Bande P.S.- Shahpur Patori District -Samastipur
3. Gulshan Aara Wife of Md. Munna @ Tufail Resident of village- Dharmpur
Bande P.S.- Shahpur Patori District -Samastipur
4. Chandni @ Chandni Khatun Daughter of Md. Munna @ Tufail Resident of
village- Dharmpur Bande P.S.- Shahpur Patori District -Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Suneil Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 96,
303(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the
F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners,
kidnapped the minor daughter of informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5203 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/2
have committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to
the occurrence and petitioners have falsely been implicated in
this case merely on suspicion. Petitioners claim clean
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other
accused persons, kidnapped the minor daughter of informant.
During course of investigation, the victim was recovered and in
her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she
has supported the prosecution case and has named these
petitioners as her kidnappers.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
and statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the
B.N.S.S., the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…