Patna High Court
Saddam Sai @ Saddam HussainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the victim’s statement under Sections 180 and 183 supported the prosecution’s case.
Summary
The petitioner, Saddam Sai, applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging his involvement in the kidnapping and molestation of a minor girl. The FIR states that the girl was abducted on 10.08.2025 by co-accused Laxman Sah with the assistance of Saddam Sai and others, and that obscene acts were committed. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the victim later testified she had gone to Delhi voluntarily and that the allegations were politically motivated. The Additional Sessions Judge recorded the victim’s statement under Sections 180 and 183, finding it supportive of the prosecution’s case. The Patna High Court, agreeing with the lower court’s findings, declined to grant anticipatory bail, concluding that there was sufficient basis to proceed against the petitioner. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the victim’s statement and the allegations of kidnapping and molestation.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner are false and politically motivated, warranting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 126(2), 74, 75, 78, 96
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- molestation
- minor
- false implication
- political vendetta
- section 180
- section 183
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88764 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- KOPA District- Saran
======================================================
Saddam Sai @ Saddam Hussain Son of Babujan Sai Resident of Village-
Piyano, P.O.- Anwal, P.S.- Kopa, District- Saran (Chapra), Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. ajendra Nath Ojha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Kopa Police Station Case No. 211 of 2025,
disclosing offences under Sections 126(2), 74, 75, 78 and 96 of
the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information
Report, the informant alleged that on 10.08.2025 his minor
daughter was kidnapped by co-accused Laxman Sah with the
help of his friends Saddam Sai (petitioner) and Badshah Sai and
she has not been traceable. It is alleged that co-accused Laxman
Sah lured his daughter for breakfast and then to a garden, where
he and his friends, molested her and performed obscene acts,
photos of which are also available as evidence
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88764 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/2
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case due to village politics. The petitioner has not committed
any offence in the manner alleged and the allegation levelled
against the petitioner is false and concocted. Learned counsel
further submits that according to the knowledge of petitioner,
under Section 180, the statement of the victim girl has been
recorded in the Court before learned J.M.F.C, Chapra in which
she refused her kidnapping and said that she went to Delhi
voluntarily and returned her home with her own sweet will.
5. Considering the nature of allegation and the
impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second,
Saran, Chhapra, has come to the conclusion that the victim girl
has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under
Sections 180 and 183, I do not find any reason to differ with the
finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second, Chhapra,
accordingly, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of
anticipatory bail.
6. The prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…