Patna High Court
Saiyad Arman @ Md. ArmanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioners, four individuals, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (Lakhisarai PS Case No. 430 of 2025) alleging offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including kidnapping and assault. The prosecution alleged that the accused entered a house, abused female members, forcibly kidnapped the informant and assaulted him, with the informant later recovered by police. The petitioners contended that the allegations were false, the informant was a habitual offender, the FIR was lodged belatedly, and the injuries reported were simple. The court examined the nature of the injuries, the possibility of false implication, and the petitioners' criminal antecedents, and concluded that bail could be granted subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, the court ordered that the petitioners be released on bail if arrested or they surrender within four weeks, upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties, and complying with conditions under Section 482 of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of kidnapping, assault and other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Whether the nature of the alleged injuries and the alleged falsehood of the FIR justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(1), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 482
- false implication
- simple injuries
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90170 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-430 Year-2025 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Saiyad Arman @ Md. Arman Son of Md. Samim Resident of Village -Sonay,
Ps- Jamui, Dist-Jamui
2. Md. Abushan @ Chhote Son of Md. Samim Resident of Village -Sonay, Ps-
Jamui, Dist-Jamui
3. Md. Sikandar Khan son of Md. Rashid Khan Resident of Village -Mahisona
Ward NO 5 PS- Tetarhat District- Lakhisarai
4. Md. Mubarak Khan Son of Md. Rashid Khan Resident of Village -Mahisona
Ward NO 5 PS- Tetarhat District- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Sri Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Meena Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Naziz Shabah, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 430 of 2025
instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 140(1),
303(2), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90170 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/5
alleged that the named accused persons including one unknown
had entered the house and started abusing the female members
of the house and thereafter they forcibly kidnapped the
informant and had assaulted him. It is further alleged that with
the help of police the informant was recovered and thereafter the
FIR was lodged.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case with
false and concocted story. It has been submitted that no such
incident, as alleged, has occurred and, in fact, the allegation of
kidnapping was also false which would be evident from the fact
that despite the incident being of 31.08.2025, the FIR was
lodged on 03.09.2025 as an afterthought with an intention to
falsely implicate the petitioners. The informant, himself, is a
habitual offender and there are several cases pending against
him and it has been stated that he is in the habit of taking money
from the villagers and has not been returning them.
5. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of
this Court towards the legal notice which was sent to the
informant vide Annexure-2 series, which would go on to show
that it was the informant who had taken money from the
petitioners and only to thwart any attempt to demand the same,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90170 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/5
present false and concocted case has been lodged. From perusal
of Annexure-4 series, it would be evident that the injuries
sustained by the injured persons were found to be simple in
nature. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 have
one criminal antecedent each while petitioner no. 4 has clean
antecedent.
6. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 as well as the
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and
have stated that the petitioners have not only kidnapped the
informant but they had also assaulted the family members and
from the injury report it would be evident that the injury was on
the forehead. It has been submitted that the petitioners had tried
to kill the informant however he was saved by the police. It has
lastly been submitted that the petitioners, if granted anticipatory
bail they would threaten the informant and others and therefore,
they should not be released on anticipatory bail.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the facts aforesaid especially taking into
account the fact that the injuries were simple in nature, the
petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90170 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/5
of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
this order, on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case
No. 430 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482 of the BNSS and subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioners;
(ii) the petitioners will remain present on each and
every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the
learned Trial Court;
(iii) in case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the
petitioners will liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned;
(iv) the Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found
that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bonds of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the
above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90170 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
5/5
same on in the name of verification.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…