Patna High Court
Wasim Akram @ Wasim Alam @ Washim Akaram @ Washim AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied regular bail to the petitioner, holding that the procedural defect in recording the victim's statement precludes granting bail at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Wasim Akram, was charged under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act (BNSS) for allegedly abducting and marrying a minor girl. The victim gave two statements: an earlier one under Section 180 BNSS and a later one under Section 183 BNSS, alleging that the petitioner enticed her and committed immoral acts. The petitioner sought regular bail, claiming innocence and lack of criminal antecedent, while the State opposed bail on the ground that the statement under Section 180 was not videographed as required by the new provisions of the BNSS, rendering it unsanctioned. The court examined the procedural defect and the seriousness of the allegations and concluded that bail could not be granted at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, though the petitioner was allowed to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted when the victim's statement under Section 180 BNSS was not videographed as mandated by the new provisions.
- Whether the lack of videography affects the admissibility and sanctity of the statement for bail considerations.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Sections 137(2) and 96 BNSS pending trial.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act (BNSS) — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 96
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- victim statement
- videography requirement
- BNSS
- Section 180
- Section 183
- procedural compliance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76523 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-572 Year-2024 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Wasim Akram @ Wasim Alam @ Washim Akaram @ Washim Alam S/O Md.
Reyaj @Md. Reyaj Alam R/O Village- Kritpur Shahnagar, P.S- Harsidhi,
Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vashisht Rai S/O Bharat Rai R/O Village- Raghunathpur, Panchayat, Uttari
Noniya, Ward No. 10, P.S- Paharpur, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr . Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Paharpur P.S. Case No. 572 of 2024 instituted
for the offence under Sections137(2) and 96 of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the minor
daughter of the informant was missing from 17.12.2024. It is
alleged that the mobile number of the informant was also
switched off. During investigation, the victim was recovered
and she has given her statement recorded under Sections 180
and 183 of the BNSS. In her statement recorded under Section
180 of BNSS, she has stated that the petitioner has got any how
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76523 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
the mobile number of the victim. He called her and she started
talking with him. She fled from the house of the petitioner and
from there, she went to Bikaner, Rajasthan with the petitioner.
She solemnized nikah with the petitioner and started living with
him. In her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, she
has stated that the petitioner has enticed her and has committed
“galat kaam” with her. She kept with him for six months at the
house of Hamid Mian and she returned from there on her own.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has further
submitted that the statement under Section 180 of BNSS is the
previous statement whereas the statement under Section 183 of
BNSS is later statement of the victim. A statement has been
made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no
criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial
custody since 18.06.2025.
5. Countering this, learned APP appearing for the
State has opposed the prayer of regular bail and has submitted
that under new provisions of BNSS while recording the
statement of the statement under Section 180 of BNSS,
videography of the same has to be conducted by the I.O. but as
the I.O. has not conducted the videography, there is no sanctity
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76523 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of
BNSS.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the fact and circumstances of this case, this
court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage
and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…