Patna High Court
Chandan kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside and bail is granted to the appellant.
Summary
Chandan Kumar appealed against the order dated 16.08.2024 that denied him anticipatory bail in a case alleging kidnapping of the informant's daughter and caste‑based harassment under IPC sections 363, 366A, 34 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with others, abducted the victim, and that the informant was insulted with caste slurs. The defence argued that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC disclosed that she left home of her own volition and denied any kidnapping, and that no public was present to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act; the appellant also had a clean antecedent. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant opposed bail. Considering the victim’s statutory statement and the appellant’s clean record, the High Court set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant in view of the allegations under IPC sections 363, 366A, 34 and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC negates the prosecution’s case of kidnapping and caste‑based offence.
- Whether the appellant’s clean antecedents warrant the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- SC/ST Act
- victim statement
- clean antecedents
- bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4999 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Chandan kumar Son of Mokhtar Sahani Resident of village- Ramgadh
Mahuawa, P.S.-Piprakothi, District -East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajmangal Baitha Son of Sukhari Baitha Resident of village- Ramgadh
Mahuawa, P.S.-Piprakothi, District -East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Harsha Shashwar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
State and learned counsel appearing for the
informant/Respondent No. 2.
2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order
dated 16.08.2024 passed in a case registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the
prayer for anticipatory bail of this appellant has been rejected.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4999 of 2024(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
appellant, along with other F.I.R. named accused persons,
kidnapped daughter of informant and when the informant went
to enquire about the same, he was abused by caste based slurs.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that appellant is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. During investigation, the victim was
recovered and in her statement recorded under Sections 164 of
the Cr.P.C., she denied the factum of kidnapping and has
categorically stated that no one kidnapped her and she, out of
her own sweet will, had gone from her house. It is further
submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that any
member of public was present at the place of occurrence and as
such, no case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against this appellant.
Appellant claims clean antecedents.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State
and learned counsel appearing for the informant/Respondent
No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the appellant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, statement of the victim recorded under Sections 164 of the
Cr.P.C. and clean antecedents of the appellant, this appeal is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4999 of 2024(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, East Champaran at
Motihari in connection with A.B.P. No. 3501 of 2024 arising out
of Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 is hereby set aside with
respect to these appellant only.
7. Accordingly, let the appellant, named above, in the
event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, East Champaran at
Motihari in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 106 of
2024.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…