Patna High Court
Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a prima facie case exists against the petitioner under the relevant IPC provisions.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Singh, was implicated in a case involving alleged cheating, kidnapping for ransom, and criminal conspiracy under IPC sections 420, 364A and 120B. He applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and asserting that the FIR does not specifically allege an overt act under Section 364A. The prosecution presented evidence that the petitioner lured the Nepalese informant to India, called for ransom, assaulted the victim, and fled with the victim's motorcycle, which was later recovered from his house. The court examined the case diary and found ample material establishing a prima facie case and serious allegations against the petitioner. Considering the gravity of the offences and the petitioner’s alleged active role, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail. The application for anticipatory bail was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations under IPC sections 420, 364A and 120B.
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the petitioner sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 364A, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping for ransom
- criminal conspiracy
- cheating
- Indian Penal Code
- prima facie case
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11825 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-614 Year-2023 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh Son of Late Arun Kumar Singh Resident of
Village - Chimanpur, Police Station - Sheohar, District - Sheohar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Dumara P.S. Case No.614 of 2023 instituted under Sections
420, 364A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, a
resident of Nepal, alongwith his friends, was allegedly called to
India by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. Upon
reaching, they were taken to different places and introduced to
several unknown persons. Subsequently, the petitioner allegedly
fled away with the motorcycle of the informant i.e. Pulsar 220
bearing Registration No. 63P-1844. Thereafter, the informant
and his friends were allegedly confined by other co-accused
persons and a ransom of Rs.6 lacs was demanded for their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11825 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/4
release and return of the aforementioned motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case due to ulterior motives. He further submits that from a
plain perusal of the F.I.R., no specific overt act is alleged
constituting offence under Section 364A of the IPC. Learned
counsel submits that the call demanding ransom was made by an
unknown person and no case is made out against the petitioner.
He further submits that the motorcycle of the informant was
taken by the petitioner in good faith. He further submits that
petitioner has one criminal antecedent and he undertakes to
cooperate in the investigation and trial of the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that
there is direct allegation against the petitioner and he has played
a pivotal role in commission of the offence by luring the
informant and his companion from Nepal to India on false
pretext which forms the foundation of the entire occurrence. He
further submits that the victim specifically admitted that the
petitioner himself has called from his phone to his friends and
family for ransom and further he had assaulted him. Learned
A.P.P. submits that the motorcycle of the informant was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11825 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/4
recovered from the back portion of the house of the petitioner.
He further submits that the materials available on records
disclose a prima facie case of well planned conspiracy wherein
the petitioner acted in concert with the other co-accused persons
ultimately resulting in wrongful confinement and demand of
ransom, thereby attracting the rigors of section 364A of the IPC.
Learned A.P.P. submits that the conduct of the petitioner in
fleeing away with the motorcycle of the informant further
strengthens the prosecution’s case and it indicates his active
complicity.
6. From perusal of case diary, it appears that there is
ample material against the petitioner which support the
prosecution case. The allegations against the petitioner are of
serious nature and prima facie case being made out against the
petitioner by facilitating the circumstances which culminated
into the alleged confinement and demand of ransom. The victim
specifically named the petitioner who made call for ransom.
7. Considering the gravity of the offences, nature of
accusation and role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner and the same is rejected in connection with Dumara
P.S. Case No.614 of 2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11825 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
4/4
8. The application stands rejected.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…