Faij Rahman @ Faiz Rahman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26245 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2025 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Faij Rahman @ Faiz Rahman S/O Mohammad Nayeem @ Md. Naim R/o - Islam Nagar, near YMCA Hospital, P.S - Daily Market, Ranchi,Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2026 Heard Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raju Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 20.07.2025 in connection with Musrigharari P.S. Case No. 113 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 17.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along with other accused persons have abducted the daughter of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26245 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026 2/3 implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner is the friend of the co-accused, namely, Raj Aryan @ Pappu and the victim was in love relation with the said Raj Aryan @ Pappu and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has helped his friend Raj Aryan @ Pappu. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. He further submits that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Raj Aryan @ Pappu against whom there is allegation that he has abducted the daughter of the informant has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 75985 of 2025. The petitioner is in custody since 20.07.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 in which she has stated the name of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26245 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026 3/3 the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Samastipur in connection with Musrigharari P.S. Case No. 113 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T