Md. Jawed v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23652 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2024 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya ====================================================== Md. Jawed S/O Md. Muslim Marhum R/O Village- Belsand, P.S.- Belsand, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J. N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Delha P.S. Case No. 310 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 87, 303(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S.

3. According to fardbeyan of the informant, his niece disappeared with ornaments from his house. The petitioner, who is already married and having children, allegedly had enticed away the niece of the informant concealing the fact that he was already married. The victim in her statement has stated that on the call of the petitioner, she went with the petitioner and she lived with him in a hostel but the petitioner did not commit

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23652 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 misdeed with her. The petitioner forcibly took her ornaments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submitted that the victim was 19 years of age and she went with the petitioner according to her own sweet will.

5. On the other hand, Mr. J. N. Thakur, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that the victim was enticed away at the false pretext without disclosing that the petitioner was already married having children from his wife. The consent of the victim was taken on misrepresentation.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) AjayMishra/- U T