Patna High Court
Jay Shiv RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellants are granted pre‑arrest bail, setting aside the lower court's order.
Summary
The appellants appealed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the lower court's refusal to grant them pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, alleging kidnapping of the informant's niece. The victim, an adult, had recorded a statement under Section 183 of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act that did not support the prosecution's allegation and had voluntarily married the co‑accused. The State and the informant opposed bail, but the High Court found the victim's statement undermined the prosecution case. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court's order, directed the appellants to be released on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to pre‑arrest bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act despite the FIR alleging kidnapping.
- Whether the victim's statement under Section 183 of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act negates the prosecution's case.
- Whether the conditions of Section 482 of the CrPC justify granting bail in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14(A)(2), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- SC/ST Act
- kidnapping allegation
- victim statement
- CrPC Section 482
- scheduled caste atrocities
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3317 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2025 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Jay Shiv Rai Son of Late Jagdev Rai
2. Anita Devi Wife of Asharfi Rai
3. Asharfi Rai Son of Late Jagdev Rai
4. Raushan Kumar @ Roshan Kumar Roy @ Roshan Kumar Son of Jay Shiv
Rai
5. Ragini Kumari @ Ragni Kumari D/o Asharfi Rai
All are resident of Village - Rusulpur Gangti, Police Station - Goraul
(Kathara), Dist. - Vaishali.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vijay Paswan Son of Late Birendra Paswan Resident of Village - Rusulpur
Gangti, Police Station - Goraul (Kathara), Dist. - Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr.Arya Mani Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
03 23-02-2026
Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants and Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, learned
Spl. PP for the State.
2. The appellants have preferred the present appeal
under Section 14(A) (2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the rejection of
prayer for pre-arrest bail, vide order dated 23.05.2025 passed by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3317 of 2025(03) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Act cum District and
Addl. Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in ABP No.1204 of
2025 arising out of Goroul (Kathara) PS Case No.120 of 2025,
registered for the offenes under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of
BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the co-
accused persons including the appellants have kidnapped the
niece of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the appellants are close family
members of the main co-accused, Sonu Kumar @ Golu Kumar,
who was in relationship with the niece of the informant and for
the said reason, the appellants have been made accused in the
present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the victim
girl in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has
not supported the prosecution story. The co-accused, who got
married with the niece of the informant, has been released on
regular bail, vide order date 10.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.75572 of 2025. Learned counsel also submitted that the
niece of the informant, who is adult, as per her own desire has
performed marriage with the co-accused, Sonu Kumar @ Golu
Kumar and in absence of any specific allegation against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3317 of 2025(03) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
appellants duly supported by the victim girl in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, they deserve to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, Mr. Arya Mani Kumar, learned counsel,
who has tendered his appearance on behalf of the informant has
opposed the bail application of the appellants.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. has also vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellants.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the FIR, I find
that the victim girl has not supported the allegation alleged
against the appellants in her statement recorded under Section
183 of BNSS.
8. The appellants, above named, are directed to be re-
leased on pre-arrest bail, in the even of their arrest or surrender
before the learned court below within a period of four weeks, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
District Court where the case is pending in connection with ABP
No.1204 of 2025 arising out of Goraul (Kathara) PS Case
No.120 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482 of the BNSS.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3317 of 2025(03) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the present appeal is allowed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U T
Checking your session…