Md. Najam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31747 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-403 Year-2018 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Md. Najam son of Md. Ahmad Resident of Village- Narayan Patti, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani 2.

Md. Kalam Son of Md. Ahmad Resident of Village- Narayan Patti, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 23-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 403 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.2494 of 2018 lodged on 13.12.2018, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. 1st, Madhubani.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against five named accused persons including the present petitioners against whom there is an allegation that they have kidnapped the informant's daughter with a view to do wrongful act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31747 of 2025(3) dt.23-07-2025 2/2 Counsel submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics and there is land dispute going on between the parties. Counsel submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners, rather, there is general and omnibus allegation. Counsel further submits that petitioner no.2 has no criminal antecedent, whereas, petitioner no.1 has one criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that in the rejection order, it has been acknowledged by the Sessions Judge that upon perusal of paragraph no.34 of the case diary, the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C was recorded, in which she has stated that the present petitioners have committed wrongful acts with her.

6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T