Asgar @ Sahil @ Shekh Sahil v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10557 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-625 Year-2024 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== Asgar @ Sahil @ Shekh Sahil S/O Shekh Jamil R/O Vill.- Mohalla- Ward no. 5, Gobri, P.S.- Motihari Town, Dist.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Dharmendra Paswan S/O Late Ajay Paswan R/O Vill.- Shahpur Tikari Road near Plani Tanki Ward no. 11, P.S.- Aurangabad Town, Dist.- Aurangabad, Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Aman Vishal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 625 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 137(2), 87, 96, 351(2) & 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act.

3.

Prosecution case, in short, is that minor daughter of the informant went missing from market and did not return home. It is further alleged that the petitioner called the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10557 of 2025(3) dt.15-09-2025 2/3 informant and claimed that victim was in Motihari, hence the FIR.

4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30-08-2024. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submits that petitioner did not kidnap the daughter of the informant rather she herself deserted the house of the informant. There is delay of six days in lodging the FIR. Victim refused for her medical examination.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Referring to statement of victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 victim admitted that accused taken away her to Motihari and snatched her mobile. Earlier accused told his caste as Kuswaha (Hindu) but at Motihari he told his name as Sheikh Sahil (Muslim). Petitioner tried to marry her and offence is very serious in nature caused to victim below 16 years.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10557 of 2025(3) dt.15-09-2025 3/3 of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

9.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail is the trial is not concluded within a period of six months.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T