Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Md. Shakur Uddin @ Md. Shakur AlamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court denied anticipatory bail, finding that the petitioners were not entitled to such relief.

Summary

The petitioners, four residents of Budhma village, were charged with kidnapping under Sections 363, 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code following an incident on 27 July 2023 where they allegedly abducted a minor girl. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code named the petitioners as the kidnappers and supported the prosecution’s case. The petitioners filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest. The court examined whether the existence of a prima facie case and the victim’s corroborated statement warranted denial of bail. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the material evidence, the court rejected the anticipatory bail plea. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused in a kidnapping case under Sections 363, 366A and 34 IPC.
  • Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC creates a sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • kidnapping
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65091 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-785 Year-2023 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
           1.     Md. Shakur Uddin @ Md. Shakur Alam S/O Mohammad Liyakat Miyan @
                  Late Liyakat Ali Resident of Village- Budhma, Ward No.- 10, P.S-
                  Madhepura Bharai, District- Madhepura, Bihar.
           2.    Md. Shahid @ Guddu Alam S/O Md. Sakur @ Md. Sakkur Alam Resident
                 of Village- Budhma, Ward No.- 10, P.S- Madhepura Bharai, District-
                 Madhepura, Bihar.
           3.    Md. Sazid @ Md. Suhel S/O Md. Firoz Alam Resident of Village- Budhma,
                 Ward No.- 10, P.S- Madhepura Bharai, District- Madhepura, Bihar.
           4.    Md. Firoz Alam @ Md. Firoz S/O Md. Muslim Resident of Village-
                 Budhma, Ward No.- 10, P.S- Madhepura Bharai, District- Madhepura, Bihar.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Ms.Muskan Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   13-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   A.P.P for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case,

                   registered for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A/34

                   of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. As per F.I.R., on 27.07.2023 at about 4 PM,

                   informant’s two daughters went to cut grass in a field, in the

                   meantime, these petitioners along with other co-accused came

                   there and tried to catch them, however, elder daughter fled away

                   from there, but younger daughter of informant was caught and
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65091 of 2025(4) dt.13-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     taken away by the accused persons.

                                  4. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section

                     164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case and specifically

                     named these petitioners, as her kidnappers.

                                  5. Considering the same, the prayer for anticipatory

                     bail of petitioners is rejected.



                                           (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay

U      T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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