Shahil @ Md. Shahil v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65679 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Shahil @ Md. Shahil S/o Shoaib @ Shoaib Akhtar R/o vill - Piruganj, P.s. - Tehta, Distt.- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rajkumar Rajkumar S/o-Ramsawroop Ram, Vill-Tehta, P.S-Makadumpur Dist-Jehanabad ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 19-03-2026 Despite valid service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

2. Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh,learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 24.03.2025 in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

4. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner kidnapped his daughter, namely, Raj Kumari, when she had gone to Tehta Bypass for tuition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65679 of 2025(6) dt.19-03-2026 2/3 present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she has stated that she had gone with the petitioner but she has not stated anything about sexual assault and apart from that the victim has refused for her medical examination. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 24.03.2025.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner was involved in the present crime in question and apart from that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matter.

7. 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 the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65679 of 2025(6) dt.19-03-2026 3/3 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) Suruchi/- U T