Md. Sahil @ Sahil Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88492 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Md. Sahil @ Sahil Alam S/O Abdul Hakim @ Abdul Resident of village - Chakdonai, P.S. - Runnisaidpur, Distt. - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Archana Kumari W/O Rakesh Ranjan Resident of village Chakdonai, Ward No.10, P.S. - Runnisaidpur, Distt. - Sitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Usha Kumari 1, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Deepmala Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 27-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 279 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 115(2), 352, 79, 191(2) & 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3(i)(r) & 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 4 & 8 of the POCSO Act. 3.

As per prosecution case, petitioner alleged kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant. 4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 04.08.2025. Petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88492 of 2025(4) dt.27-07-2026 2/3 bears no criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is delay of two (2) days in lodging the FIR, without any plausible explanation. Referring to statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, it is submitted that victim has not supported the prosecution case. Charge sheet has already been submitted in this case.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that all the charge sheet witnesses have been examined in this case expect the Investigating Officer.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account the fact that trial is on the verge of its conclusion, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments preferably within a period of two

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88492 of 2025(4) dt.27-07-2026 3/3 months.

9.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below, if the trial is not concluded within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T