Patna High Court
Taimur Haque @ Temur Haque @ Taimul HaqueversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail, holding that the specific accusations of kidnapping and conspiracy, supported by the victim's statement, warranted the rejection of the bail petition.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of relatives, applied for anticipatory bail after learning that they were likely to be arrested in a case registered under multiple sections of the B.N.S. relating to kidnapping, conspiracy, and other offences. The prosecution alleges that the informant's son was married to one of the petitioners, subsequently kidnapped by the petitioners and taken to Bengal, where he was held for several days before being released. The petitioners contend they are innocent, claim the FIR was lodged after an undue delay, and assert they have clean antecedents. The State, represented by the informant, opposed the bail, highlighting the specific accusations and a victim statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. confirming the kidnapping. The court examined the seriousness of the charges, the direct nature of the accusations, and the victim's corroborative statement, and consequently rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. The petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioners subject to the ongoing criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners given the specific and serious nature of the accusations under the B.N.S.
- Whether the victim's statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. substantiates the prosecution's case sufficient to deny bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- conspiracy
- FIR
- victim statement
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90597 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Taimur Haque @ Temur Haque @ Taimul Haque S/o Samsul Haque
Resident of Village- Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District-
Katihar
2. Saidul Haque @ Saidur Rahman S/o Samsul Haque Resident of Village-
Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar
3. Safu Haque @ Safu Alam @ Saifuddin S/o Samsul Haque Resident of
Village- Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar
4. Ramzan Alam @ Ramnaj @ Ramjan Ali S/o Akbar Ali Resident of Village-
Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar
5. Akbar Ali S/o Saidur Rahman Resident of Village- Gosaiepur, Saundha
Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar
6. Tarikhul Alam @ Tarik Alam S/o Saidur Rahman Resident of Village-
Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar
7. Aasisa Khatoon @ Aaisa Khatun @ Aayesha Khatoon W/o Sitaboor
Rahman, D/o Taimur Haque @ Temur Haque @ Taimul Haque Resident of
Village- Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Makbool, S/o Late Md. Johak Ali, R/o - Village- Bathani Patilwa, Ward
No. 9, P.S. Sadar, District- Purnea
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90597 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 137(2), 140(3), 352, 351(2), 308(4), 303(2) and 3(5) of
the B.N.S..
3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that marriage
of son of informant, namely Sitaboor Rahman, was solemnized
with Petitioner No. 7, namely Aasisa Khatoon, and after some
time son of informant went missing on 11.08.2025. It is alleged
that Petitioner No. 7, along with all other F.I.R. named accused
persons, including these petitioners, who happen to be her
family members, kidnapped the son of informant and took him
to Bengal where he was confined for several days and was
released only after lodging of the F.I.R..
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been
implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Moreover, the
present F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay of 8 days
and there is no plausible explanation for the same which itself
makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. Petitioners claim
clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90597 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
learned counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. have
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. and there is specific accusation that under a conspiracy, all
of them kidnapped the son of informant and confined him for
several days. During investigation, the victim was recovered and
in his statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., he
has supported the prosecution case and has categorically stated
that he was kidnapped and confined in Bengal for eight days by
these petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
and statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the
B.N.S.S., the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…