Patna High Court
Badshah Sai @ BadshahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied to the petitioner as the allegations are serious and the victim’s statement supports the prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Badshah Sai, was implicated in a case (Kopa P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025) alleging molestation, obscene acts, and kidnapping of a minor, charged under Sections 126(2), 74, 75, 78 and 96 of the B.N.S. He applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence, a two‑day delay in filing the FIR, and that the victim went voluntarily with another accused. The State argued that the victim’s statement, recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Cr.P.C., specifically implicated the petitioner and cited a similar bail denial for a co‑accused. The Court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the victim’s recorded statement, and the precedent of the earlier bail denial. Finding the allegations grave and the evidence supportive, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving alleged molestation and kidnapping of a minor.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Sections 180 and 183 Cr.P.C. suffices to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the prior denial of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused influences the present petition.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 126(2), 74, 75, 78, 96
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 180, 183
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- child sexual abuse
- molestation
- kidnapping
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7396 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- KOPA District- Saran
======================================================
Badshah Sai @ Badshah Son of Hamid Sha @ Hamid Sai R/o Village -
Piyano, P.S.- Kopa, Dist.- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aniket Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Kopa P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025, instituted for the
offences under Sections 126(2), 74, 75, 78 & 96 of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, on the date of
occurrence one Lakshman Sah called the minor daughter of
informant in an orchard where petitioner along with other
accused persons molested the victim and committed obscene
acts with her and also took photo of the same. It is further
alleged that the accused persons including the petitioner lured
and kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7396 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
case. There is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. There
was love affairs between the victim and co-accused Lakshman
Sah. Victim was not kidnapped rather she had gone with her
own will with Lakshman Sah. Petitioner who is co-villager
when objected to the victim going with Lakshman Sah, he has
been implicated in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.P.P. for the State oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner and submit that the victim in her statement
specifically stated that petitioner had made video recording
from his mobile when co-accused Saddam Sai was molesting
her. It is further submitted that the anticipatory bail petition of
co-accused Saddam Sai @ Saddam Hussain, who is on the
similar footing as that of the petitioner, has been rejected by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.01.2026
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 88764 of 2025.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of
allegation and the victim girl has supported the allegation
against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section
180 and 183 Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7396 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
rakhi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.