Patna High Court
Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of Sardhanand Kumar, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.
Summary
The petitioners Suraj Kumar, Vikash Kumar and Sardhanand Kumar were implicated in a case of child abduction under Sections 137(2), 140(1), 140(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The victim’s statement named Suraj and Vikash but not Sardhanand, who is the brother of the other two accused. The petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail; however, the counsel withdrew the applications for Suraj and Vikash, leaving only Sardhanand’s request. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The Court considered the lack of the petitioner’s name in the victim’s statement, his familial ties, and his history of bail in other cases, and granted anticipatory bail to Sardhanand Kumar subject to strict conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. The order also imposed reporting requirements to the Superintendent of Police.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Sardhanand Kumar despite the allegations of involvement in child abduction.
- Whether the absence of the petitioner’s name in the victim’s statement is sufficient ground to grant bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 140(1), 140(3), 183, 3(5), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- child abduction
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1953 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2025 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Suraj Kumar Son of Dinesh Prasad Resident of Village- Badih (Badiha),
P.S.- Dhanarua, District- Patna
2. Jai @ Vikash @ Vikash Kumar Son of Dinesh Prasad Resident of Village-
Badih (Badiha), P.S.- Dhanarua, District- Patna
3. Sardhanand Kumar @ Sardar Kumar Son of Dinesh Prasad Resident of
Village- Badih (Badiha), P.S.- Dhanarua, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shyamal Prakash, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 After some arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that he shall not be pressing the application
of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Suraj Kumar and Jai @
Vikash @ Vikash Kumar.
2. Accordingly, the application with respect to the
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 stands dismissed as not pressed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner no. 3
namely, Sardhanand Kumar @ Sardar Kumar and the learned
A.P.P. for the State.
4. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 216 dated 2025 dated 31.03.2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 1953 of 2026(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/5
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2),
140(1), 140(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
5. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
informant had gone to market with her husband and had left her
son (the victim) and her daughter at home. It is further alleged
that one Mantu Singh called her on mobile stating that her son
was forcibly made to sit on a motorcycle in front of her house
by six unknown persons who took him away somewhere. It is
further alleged that when the informant came back to her house,
she came to know that it was Suraj Kumar, Vikash Kumar and
Sardar Kumar and some other unknown persons who had taken
the son of the informant on the motorcycle.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case though his
name has been taken by the informant however the victim was
recovered and his statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S.
was recorded and he had categorically named one Santosh
Kumar, Vikash Kumar (petitioner no. 2) and Suraj Kumar
(petitioner no. 1) however, he has not taken the name of the
petitioner no. 3 in his statement. It has further been submitted
that the petitioner no. 3 is own brother of Suraj Kumar and
Vikash Kumar and he is well known to the son of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 1953 of 2026(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/5
and therefore, he may be released on bail. It has lastly been
submitted that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents and
he is on bail almost in all cases.
7. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
8. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case, the petitioner no. 3 namely, Sardhanand Kumar @
Sardar Kumar, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 216 dated 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of
BNSS as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 1953 of 2026(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/5
and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner
will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court
shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
(v) In view of the antecedents of the petitioner, the
petitioner is directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police,
Patna within fifteen (15) days of his release with a copy of this
order and every two weeks thereafter for the next nine months.
The conduct of the petitioner will be kept under watch in this
period by the concerned Superintendent of Police and if it is found
wanting in any respect, a report shall be made to the Court
concerned by him to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of bail
of the petitioner for reasons of misuse of bail. After reporting to
the Superintendent of Police, a certificate will be filed by the
petitioner before the Court concerned.
9. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 1953 of 2026(3) dt.23-02-2026
5/5
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
10. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.