Abdul Rahman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12327 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2024 Thana- MANIYARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Abdul Rahman S/o- Md. Rami @ Rami Ahmed Resident of VillageVishunpur gidha Ps- Maniyari District-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raju Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her daughter on 08.06.2024 at 9.00 P.M. had gone to attend call of nature, but did not return. On inquiry, it transpired that her daughter has been abducted by Abdul Rahman, Md. Iltab, Md. Sahwaj and Nuresha Khatoon, thus alleges that accused abducted her for immoral purpose.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim and the petitioner are major and were in love, as such,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12327 of 2025(2) dt.28-03-2025 2/3 the victim on her own free-will had accompanied the petitioner. It is further submitted that even the FIR came to be instituted after a delay of 11 days as the date of occurrence is 08.06.2024 and the FIR was instituted on 19.06.2024. It is further submitted that since the informant was aware that victim has left on her own free-will, as such, he did not institute an FIR promptly. It is further submitted that after the victim was recovered, she went to her parents' place and thereafter, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she supported the case of the prosecution and stated that she was taken by train and kept at a location for 20-25 days against her will. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim under parental pressure got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that petitioner will abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12327 of 2025(2) dt.28-03-2025 3/3 Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Miss Pooja, learned J.M. 1st Class, West, Court No.3, Muzaffarpur in connection with Maniyari P. S. Case No.138 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner, despite giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the investigation or is not presenting himself as and when required, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after recording reasons.
9. Further, it is made clear that in the event, if chargesheet is filed connecting the petitioner with the offence in that event, the present anticipatory bail order shall loose its effect.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Police Station through the learned trial Court. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T