Patna High Court
Md. Tauhid @ Saud Khan @ Tauhid @ Md. Tahid KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner as the victim’s statement did not implicate him.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Tauhid, was implicated in a kidnapping case (Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 178 of 2025) under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, after an informant alleged that her minor daughter was abducted by the petitioner and a co‑accused, Vivek Kumar Patel. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS revealed that she had voluntarily left with Vivek Kumar Patel to Delhi and later married him, contradicting the prosecution’s kidnapping theory. The petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application, citing the victim’s statement and the fact that Vivek Kumar Patel had already been granted regular bail and had married the victim. The State opposed the bail, but the court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, found no material incriminating the petitioner in the victim’s statement. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the victim’s voluntary statement and lack of direct evidence linking him to the alleged kidnapping.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 140(3), 183
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- victim statement
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- POCSO
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69365 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2025 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Md. Tauhid @ Saud Khan @ Tauhid @ Md. Tahid Khan S/O Md. Jahangir
Ansari @ Md. Jahangir R/O Village- Kadrabad, Ward No.- 05, Police Station-
Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeet Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 17-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 178 of 2025, F.I.R
dated 26.05.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 137(2), 140(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, it is alleged that on
23.05.2025 at about 11:00 A.M., the minor daughter of the
informant left her house and did not return. The informant
expressed suspicion that her daughter had been kidnapped and
named the petitioner along with one Vivek Kumar Patel. It is
further alleged that despite a thorough search, the informant
could not trace her daughter and suspected that the petitioner
and the co-accused had kidnapped her with ill motive, the
victim being age about 16 years. It is also alleged that the victim
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69365 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
2/4
was seen at Bachhwara Railway Station in the company of the
petitioner. On the basis of the application submitted by the
informant, F.I.R was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case
diary was called for in this case along with the statement of
victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023. On perusal
of the statement so recorded, it is quite evident that the victim
has herself stated that she knew Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar
Patel for about one and half year, with whom she wanted to
marry, but their parents were not agreeing and forcing her to get
married with somebody else for which, she was not ready and as
such she along with Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Patel went to
Delhi on her own, for that nobody assisted her in going to Delhi.
5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner referring to
the contents of the bail application filed by the Vivek Kumar @
Vivek Kumar Patel, who has been allowed regular bail, and from
the order passed in B.A. No. 1399 of 2025, passed by Special
Judge, POCSO Court, Begusarai, (kept on record marked as
‘X’). It is referred that Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Patel and
victim girl has already married and has not supported the
prosecution story, the order passed in the case of Vivek Kumar
@ Vivek Kumar Patel.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69365 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
3/4
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and the various
decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the bail application was
allowed in favour of Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Patel, since
the role of this petitioner have not been taken by the victim girl
in her statement so recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023.
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai
in connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 178 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69365 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
4/4
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.