Patna High Court
Navi Aalam @ Md. Nabir Alam @ PalpalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Navi Aalam, sought pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that he had enticed the minor daughter of an informant away. The alleged incident occurred on 19‑20 May 2025, but the FIR was lodged only on 26 May 2025, raising questions about the delay. The victim, a sixteen‑year‑old girl, gave statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, asserting that she left her home voluntarily, denied any sexual assault, and claimed the FIR was false. The State opposed bail, contending that the minor’s involvement indicated the petitioner’s complicity. The Court, noting the victim’s voluntary statements, the unexplained FIR delay, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, granted bail subject to monetary and surety conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order required the petitioner to surrender within four weeks if arrested.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, given the victim’s statements and delay in filing the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 183, 96
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- delay in FIR
- minor victim
- Section 96
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70923 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2025 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur
======================================================
Navi Aalam @ Md. Nabir Alam @ Palpal S/o Late Md. Nijam @ Bhuttu R/o
Village- Bathua Buzurg, P.S.- Mu7srigharari, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 94 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. Allegedly the minor daughter of the informant is
said to have cajoled and enticed away by the petitioner
alongwith others for the purposes of wrongful act.
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner taking this Court through the FIR submitted that the
alleged occurrence took place on 19.05.2025 and on the next
day i.e. on 20.05.2025 the informant came to know that it is the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70923 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
petitioner and others who have enticed away his daughter but
the present FIR came to be instituted on 26.05.2025, without
there being any plausible explanation. Moreover, the entire case
falls to the ground for the simple reason that the daughter of the
informant returned to her house and her statement has been
recorded by the police under Section 180 of the BNS wherein
she has categorically stated that she voluntarily left her house
with the petitioner and when she came to know that the FIR has
been instituted, she immediately returned. The statement of the
victim has also been recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS
wherein she has not even whispered against the petitioner of
causing any sexual assault; rather she has stated that on getting
angry with her father, she left her home and she did not
solemnize marriage with the petitioner. She further submitted
that the present FIR has been falsely implicated against the
petitioner. The petitioner bears fair antecedent and submits that
he will fully cooperate in the proceeding of the Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits
that the victim is aged about sixteen years and she left her house
alongwith the petitioner and, as such, his complicity cannot be
denied.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70923 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS
coupled with the delay in lodging of the FIR as well as the fair
antecedent of the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be
released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
court below within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Samastipur in connection with
Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 94 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the bailors
shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U T
Checking your session…