Taimur Haque @ Temur Haque @ Taimul Haque v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90597 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.
Taimur Haque @ Temur Haque @ Taimul Haque S/o Samsul Haque Resident of Village- Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, DistrictKatihar 2.
Saidul Haque @ Saidur Rahman S/o Samsul Haque Resident of VillageGosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar 3.
Safu Haque @ Safu Alam @ Saifuddin S/o Samsul Haque Resident of Village- Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar 4.
Ramzan Alam @ Ramnaj @ Ramjan Ali S/o Akbar Ali Resident of VillageGosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar 5.
Akbar Ali S/o Saidur Rahman Resident of Village- Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar 6.
Tarikhul Alam @ Tarik Alam S/o Saidur Rahman Resident of VillageGosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar 7.
Aasisa Khatoon @ Aaisa Khatun @ Aayesha Khatoon W/o Sitaboor Rahman, D/o Taimur Haque @ Temur Haque @ Taimul Haque Resident of Village- Gosaiepur, Saundha Ghat, PS- Azamnagar, District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Md. Makbool, S/o Late Md. Johak Ali, R/o - Village- Bathani Patilwa, Ward No. 9, P.S. Sadar, District- Purnea ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90597 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026 2/3
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 137(2), 140(3), 352, 351(2), 308(4), 303(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that marriage of son of informant, namely Sitaboor Rahman, was solemnized with Petitioner No. 7, namely Aasisa Khatoon, and after some time son of informant went missing on 11.08.2025. It is alleged that Petitioner No. 7, along with all other F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners, who happen to be her family members, kidnapped the son of informant and took him to Bengal where he was confined for several days and was released only after lodging of the F.I.R..
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Moreover, the present F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay of 8 days and there is no plausible explanation for the same which itself makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90597 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026 3/3 learned counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and there is specific accusation that under a conspiracy, all of them kidnapped the son of informant and confined him for several days. During investigation, the victim was recovered and in his statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., he has supported the prosecution case and has categorically stated that he was kidnapped and confined in Bengal for eight days by these petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence and statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T