IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6076 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2025 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria ======================================================

Md. Shahid @ Shahid Son of Sri Md. Imtiyaj @ Imtiyaj Resident of Village-

Taran Tola Kamat, P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate Mr. Mudit Meet, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

3 26-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 96, 352, 351(3), 3(5) and 140 (3) of B.N.S, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner along with co-

accused persons is alleged to have kidnapped the niece of the informant and demanded ransom of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the present F.I.R has been lodged after an unexplained delay of eight days, in as much as, while the occurrence is said to have taken place on 28.06.2025, the F.I.R came to be lodged on 09.07.2025 with the names of the petitioner and others and there is no reason, if the names were already known, why the F.I.R was not lodged earlier. It is further submitted that after recovery the statement of victim was first recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S wherein she has stated that she had left her house voluntarily on the night of 29.06.2025 with the petitioner who is also a young boy aged about twenty two years and got married on the very next date and only after having known that the family members of the petitioner were being threatened they came back and were recovered by the police. However, a different story has been narrated in the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S by giving a vague statement that the petitioner had taken her away but she is not aware to what place she was taken and subsequently it was known that a case had been filed and she was brought back to Araria where the police apprehended both the petitioner and the victim. Further, she has herself refused the medical examination as such no medical evidence is on record and even in the statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S, she has not alleged any sexual assault upon her. Petitioner is a young boy with no criminal antecedent. Petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the factum of unexplained delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R, coupled with the fact that victim has made different statement under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S , the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Jokihat P.S. Case No. 225 of 2025.

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

vashudha/-

U T