Salim Miya @ Salimuddin v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37031 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2024 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran ====================================================== Salim Miya @ Salimuddin S/O Late Imamul Hussain R/O VillageBarhumua, P.S- Dighwara, Distt.- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Harsh Anuj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Dighwara P.S. Case No. 107 of 2024 lodged on 13.04.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-II, Saran.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against one named accused person (petitioner) and three unknown persons, alleging that they have kidnapped the informant's daughter with the intention of selling her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that the petitioner has always supported in the investigation, but he has unnecessarily been made accused in this case. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37031 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 20.04.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that on earlier occasion, case diary as well as statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has been called for. From perusal of the said statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it transpires that the victim girl has supported the prosecution case and disclosed that the petitioner has forcefully kidnapped her with the intention of selling her.

6. This Court is of the view that there is a clear distinction between Section 161 and Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and finds that the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. shall always prevail over the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

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