Md. Saijada @Md. Shahjada v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5203 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2025 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Md. Saijada @Md. Shahjada Son of Md. Munna @ Tufail Resident of village- Dharmpur Bande P.S.- Shahpur Patori District -Samastipur 2.

Md. Munna @ Tufail son of Md. Shammi Resident of village- Dharmpur Bande P.S.- Shahpur Patori District -Samastipur 3.

Gulshan Aara Wife of Md. Munna @ Tufail Resident of village- Dharmpur Bande P.S.- Shahpur Patori District -Samastipur 4.

Chandni @ Chandni Khatun Daughter of Md. Munna @ Tufail Resident of village- Dharmpur Bande P.S.- Shahpur Patori District -Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Suneil Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 303(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners, kidnapped the minor daughter of informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5203 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026 2/2 have committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other accused persons, kidnapped the minor daughter of informant. During course of investigation, the victim was recovered and in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she has supported the prosecution case and has named these petitioners as her kidnappers.

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