Patna High Court

Adarsh Kumar Thakur @ Adarsh RajversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied because the accusations were specific, grave, and supported by the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.

Summary

The petitioners, Adarsh Kumar Thakur and Aman Raj, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case alleging kidnapping and rape of a minor daughter of an informant. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with other accused, abducted the child and committed rape in Patna, citing specific charges under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The petitioners claimed innocence, asserting that the allegations stemmed from an old enmity and that they have clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusations and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. The court examined the gravity of the offences, the direct nature of the accusations, and the victim’s recorded testimony, and consequently rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code given the specific and serious nature of the allegations

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 342, 347, 366, 366A, 367, 504, 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
kidnapping
rape
minor
IPC
POCSO Act
Section 164
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1112 of 2026

                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2023 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
           1.    Adarsh Kumar Thakur @ Adarsh Raj S/O Shailendra Thakur R/O Village-
                 Babu Tola, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur
           2.    Aman Raj @ Ankush Kumar Thakur @ Ankush Kumar S/O Vikash Thakur
                 @ Vyas Thakur R/O Village- Babu Tola, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    XXX S/O Late Ram Snehi Singh R/O Vill.- Usti, P.S.- Paroo, P.O.-
                 Bhagwanpur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioners      :        Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 366A,

                   367, 120B, 347, 342, 506, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

                   and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on refusal

                   to withdraw Paroo P.S. Case No. 334 of 2021, which was lodged

                   by wife of the informant against family members of these
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1112 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioners, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these

          petitioners, threatened the informant to kidnap his minor

          daughter and thereafter, on the alleged date and time of

          occurrence, these two petitioners took away minor daughter of

          informant to Patna where they allegedly committed rape upon

          her.

                       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 due to old enmity. Petitioners claim clean

          antecedents.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

          petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R.

          with specific accusation that they kidnapped the minor daughter

          of informant and committed rape. The victim, in her statement

          recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., has supported the

          prosecution case.

                       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 164 of the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1112 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                                         3/3




                       Cr.P.C., the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners

                       is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.