Md Nadeem Akhatar @ Naddim v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21090 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2024 Thana- ADAPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Md Nadeem Akhatar @ Naddim Son of Shiekh Phool Mohammad R/V -Andhara Ramgadhwa PS -Adapur Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ansul, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Adapur P.S. Case No. 353 of 2024 registered under Sections-137(2), 96, 3(5) of B.N.S. (corresponding to Sections-363, 366A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code).

3. Allegedly, the informant's minor daughter was kidnapped by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is a person of clean antecedent. There is delay of nine days in instituting the case and explanation for delay has not been explained by the prosecution. The daughter of the informant has left house with her own sweet will. According to C.D.R. report, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21090 of 2025(11) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 victim has been in touch with two mobile Numbers, i.e. 8104451779 (belongs to the petitioner) and the other 9819479746 which belongs to one Samir Alam. He has also submitted that according to school certificates, the victim is above 20 years of age and as per her own sweet will, she went with the petitioner. He has also submitted that as per instruction, the victim is in continuous touch of her parents on mobile phone.

5. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the informant as well as Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that as per direction of this court, initiatives were taken by the police officials but the victim could not be traced out. It has also been submitted that the plea of the petitioner that the victim is in contact of her parents is also not revealed in the investigation.

6. The victim is still traceless. According to allegation, the petitioner has kidnapped her.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T