Patna High Court
Prahlad kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Prahlad Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case (PS Case No. 198 of 2024) where he was alleged to be involved in offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to the alleged abduction of a girl. The prosecution’s case was based on the family’s claim that the victim was taken away by a co‑accused, Manish Kumar. The victim, however, recorded a statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita stating that she voluntarily went with Manish Kumar out of love and made no accusation against Prahlad Kumar. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted the victim’s candid statement and the fact that the co‑accused had already been granted regular bail, arguing there was no incriminating material against the petitioner. The court, after verifying the victim’s statement, was inclined to grant anticipatory bail, imposing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and several conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order directed the petitioner to surrender within thirty days if arrested and to comply with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- The effect of the victim’s voluntary statement under Section 183 on the petitioner’s liability.
- The relevance of the co‑accused’s bail status to the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 183, 3(5), 87
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- kidnapping
- victim statement
- bail conditions
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15679 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2024 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Prahlad kumar Son of Mahesh Bari Resident of village -Gangwara Kranti
chowk P.S- sadar District -Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 198 of 2024
corresponding to G.R. No. 2082 of 2024, F.I.R dated 13.09.2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87,
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant and
his family went for sleeping and her daughter went for bathroom
but she did not return, then her family members found that she
was missing and claimed that her daughter was taken away by
one co-accused person, namely, Manish Kumar as her family
members seen the co-accused nearby his house earlier.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15679 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/4
victim herself has recorded the statement under Section 183 of
BNSS, that she herself went with the co-accused Manish
Kumar, as she was in love with him. It is also submitted by
referring to the statement made in the anticipatory bail petition
that it is her candid statement of the victim girl that the
petitioner has not committed any wrong act with her. It is next
submitted that the petitioner is a man of means and has clean
antecedents, while the co-accused, Manish Kumar, with whom
the victim is said to have gone away from her lawful
guardianship has already been extended the privilege of regular
bail, and on this strength, the petitioner seeks the privilege of
anticipatory bail, as there is nothing incriminating that has been
said by the victim against this petitioner.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the fact that the co-accused, Manish
Kumar, has already been extended the privilege of bail, and the
main co-accused with whom the victim, is said to have eloped
away, has already been extended the privilege of bail and
nothing incriminating has been said against the petitioner by the
victim with regard to any wrong act having been done to her.
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15679 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/4
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, the learned court
concerned is directed to verify such a statement of the counsel
of the petitioner from the statement so recorded by the victim,
which is recorded under Section 183 of BNSS.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M. 1st Madhubani in connection
with Rahika P.S. Case No. 198 of 2024 corresponding to G.R.
No. 2082 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section
482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other
following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15679 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
4/4
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.