Patna High Court
Ashutosh Kumar @ Golu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the contradictions in the statements create reasonable doubt that must be resolved in favour of the accused.
Summary
The petitioner, Golu Kumar, was named in an FIR (Majhauliya PS Case No.821 of 2025) under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 87, 352 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly entering an informant’s house and attempting to take away her daughter. The prosecution’s case rests on a statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS and a fardbeyan, which the court found to be in sharp contradiction. The petitioner’s counsel argued his innocence, highlighted the contradictory statements, and emphasized his young age (about 19 years). The informant and the State opposed bail, relying on the FIR and the statements. The court noted that when evidence creates doubt, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused and consequently granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 2(1)(d) and Section 482(2) of the BNS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite contradictions between the Section 183 statement and the fardbeyan.
- Whether the contradictions in the statements create reasonable doubt favouring the accused.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 183, 2(1)(d), 3(5), 352, 482(2), 87
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- contradictory statements
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 183
- fardbeyan
- reasonable doubt
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13612 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-821 Year-2025 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Ashutosh Kumar @ Golu Kumar Son of Rajan Chaudhary @ Rajan Chaudhry
Resident Of Village- sonbarsha Police Station-jogapatti District-west
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX Wife of YYY Resident Of Village- Majhariya Sekh, Ps- Majhauliya,
Dist- West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 821 of 2025, dated 22.11.2025,
lodged under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 87, 352 and 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS,
2023”).
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged
against 10 named accused persons, including the present
petitioner, with an allegation that the accused persons, namely
Sandeep Kumar, Golu Kumar (petitioner), and Adarsh Kumar,
entered the informant’s house and tried to take away the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13612 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
informant’s daughter. Upon the informant’ daughter raising
alarm, when she came out, two of the accused persons fled
away, but Sandeep Kumar was caught. Thereafter, all the
accused persons came armed with lathi and rod to get Sandeep
Kumar released from the custody of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
further submits that the said Sandeep Kumar was in love with
the informant’s daughter and, upon her call, he entered the
house, subsequently, when the alleged victim was caught by her
mother, she changed her statement. Counsel further submits that
the case diary has been called for and the chats which took place
between the alleged victim and Sandeep Kumar form part of the
case diary. Counsel further submits that the statement under
Section 183 of the BNSS has also been called for and the said
statement is in sharp contradiction with the allegations made in
the fardbeyan. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is
aged about 19 years, and this aspect may also be taken into
consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is
named in the FIR, though he is alleged to have fled away from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13612 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
the place of occurrence, however, his involvement cannot be
denied. Counsel further submits that on the previous occasion,
the case diary and the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS
have also been called for.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that, in the case diary, the
entire chat which took place between the accused Sandeep
Kumar and the alleged victim has been incorporated. Counsel
further submits that from the said chat, it transpires that the
alleged victim had instigated her friend to come to her house,
and thereafter the said Sandeep Kumar went with his friends and
entered the house, but only Sandeep Kumar was caught, while
the others fled away.
7. Upon perusal of the statement under Section 183 of
the BNSS, it transpires to this Court that the victim has made
allegations against three persons, including the present
petitioner, however, the said statement is in sharp contradiction
with the fardbeyan, which indicates something different.
8. It further transpires to this Court that if the
fardbeyan is to be relied upon, the Section 183 of the BNSS
statement cannot be relied upon, and if the Section 183 of the
BNSS statement is to be relied upon, then the fardbeyan cannot
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13612 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
be relied upon. In this background, doubts arise in the mind of
the Court, and when such doubts arise, they are to be resolved in
favour of the accused.
9. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, let the above named petitioner be released on
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as
mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the BNSS, 2023 to the
satisfaction of District & Additional Sessions Judge 6 th cum
Special Judge, POCSO, Bettiah, West Champaran, in connection
with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 821 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…