Shaikh Shahil @ Md. Sahil @ Shekh Shahil v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31907 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-567 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran ====================================================== Shaikh Shahil @ Md. Sahil @ Shekh Shahil S/O Sheikh Kadir Resident of Village- Kunjlahi Sheikh toli, ward No. 11, P.S.- Nautan, Dist.- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sunita Devi W/O Late Bullet Patel R/O Vill.- Khalwa Khap Tola (Nautan Dubey), P.S.- Nautan, Dist.- West Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No.567 of 2025 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 137(2), 87, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 pending before the court of District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge(SC/ST), Bettiah, West Champaran.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against five named and three unknown accused persons including the petitioner with allegation that the accused persons had kidnapped the informant's daughter and assaulted her.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31907 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/2 that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to dirty village politics. He further submits that there is no eye witness of kidnapping with intention to marry by enticing the victim. He further submits that nothing specific allegation against the petitioner to participated in the alleged occurrence.

5. Learned Counsel also submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He further submits that the victim has given her statement under section 180 and 183 of the BNSS in which she stated that no force has been made with her.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the Sessions Court upon consideration of bail application, has ascertain the date of birth of the victim is 04.05.2009 on the basis of school certificate. In this background, on the date of occurrence, the victim was minor.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Prakashmani/- U