IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58703 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- JALALGARH District- Purnia ======================================================

Md. Matin @ Md. Matin Alam S/o Md. Mokim Resident of village- Jhawari, P.S- Jalalgarh, District - Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 11.06.2025 and the informant alleges that daughter of Md. Mokim and son of the informant, namely, Md. Taufique were in love and they fled from the house on 02.05.2025 at 06:00 p.m. Further, on 03.05.2025, the father of the girl along with uncle and two other people came to the house of the informant and asked him to bring back Tafique who had fled with their daughter or else the consequences would be bad. It is next alleged that two days later, the informant came to know that his son and the girl were caught at Chandigarh by the girl’s family members, i.e., Md. Azad, Md. Waris and Md. Sharukh and both boy and the girl were brought from Chandigarh to Jhabari but then no information was given to the police or to the informant. The informant on coming to know that his son and the girl have been brought back from Chandigarh, went to the house of the accused persons when he came to know that his son Md. Tafique has been murdered. Accordingly, the police was informed and the dead body of the son of the informant was found lying at Verandah of Md. Nayeem’s house. The informant also came to know that his son was kept in captivity a day before, thus, alleges that the accused persons including the petitioner killed his son.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the same hinges around suspicion as petitioner is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It is also submitted that the informant in the FIR specifically alleges that three named persons had gone to Chandigarh for bringing back his son and the girl but then he does not name the petitioner who had gone to Chandigarh for bringing back Tafique and the girl. It is also submitted that dead body of the son of the informant was found at the Verandah of Nayeem and Nayeem in no way is related to the family of the girl. It is further submitted that petitioner being brother of the girl with whom Tafique had fled, as such, has been implicated in the instant case based on suspicion. 5. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application by submitting that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that son of the informant died. It is also submitted that family members of the girl had come to the house of the informant asking him to bring back Md. Taufique and the girl, failing which the consequences would be bad. It is next submitted that it is also not in dispute that Tafique and the girl were brought back to Jhabari where the dead body of Tafique was found, i.e., at Verandah of Nayeem. It is further submitted that Nayeem, as submitted, is not related with the family members of the girl but then the dead body was found at his Verandah but then what would be the motive of Nayeem to kill the son of the informant when the girl was not related to him in any manner but then it is sub