Patna High Court
Vijay Sah @ Vijo SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that bail may be granted only if the victim’s statement does not specifically allege the petitioners’ involvement; otherwise the bail must be rejected.
Summary
The petitioners applied for pre‑arrest (anticipatory) bail in a kidnapping case registered as Parbatta P.S. Case No. 11 of 2026, alleging offences under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the BNS. The FIR alleges that Aditya Kumar, son of petitioner 1, kidnapped the minor daughter of an informant, while petitioners 1 and 3 are his parents and petitioners 2 and 4 are his siblings. The petitioners contended they had no role in the kidnapping and that the allegations were solely against the minor co‑accused, also asserting clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail. The High Court directed the District Court to examine the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS to determine if any specific allegation is made against the petitioners; bail would be denied if such allegations exist, otherwise it may be granted on suitable conditions. Consequently, the district court’s earlier order was modified and the bail application was disposed of pending the victim’s statement.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can be granted pre‑arrest bail for offences under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the BNS in the kidnapping case.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS contains specific allegations against any of the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners have any role or culpability in the alleged kidnapping of the minor.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- victim statement
- Section 96 BNS
- Section 3(5) BNS
- Section 183 BNSS
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20388 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2026 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Vijay Sah @ Vijo Sah S/o Late Banarsi Sah
2. Manjeet Kumar @ Manjit Kumar S/o Vijay Sah @ Vijo Sah
3. Meena Devi @ Mina Devi W/o Vijay Sah @ Vijo Sah
4. Shivani Kumari D/o Vijay Sah @ Vijo Sah
All are Resident of - Kulhariya, Ward No. 1, P.S - Parbatta, District -
Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Renuka Ratnakar (App 125)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Renuka Ratnakar
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 11 of 2026 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 96,3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, one Aditya
Kumar, son of petitioner no.1 had kidnapped the minor daughter
of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners no.1 and 3 are father
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20388 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
and mother respectively, whereas petitioners no.2 and 4 are
brother and sister of said co-accused Aditya Kumar. Learned
counsel further submitted that co-accused Aditya Kumar and
daughter of the informant were in love relationship and the
petitioners have no role in the alleged kidnapping of the minor
daughter of the informant. Learned counsel further contends
that no case under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the BNS is made out
against the petitioners, particularly in view of the specific
allegations being made against the co-accused Aditya Kumar,
who is also stated to be a minor. Petitioners have clean
antecedents.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties and upon perusal of the allegations made in the
FIR, this Court directs the learned District Court to call for and
examine the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183
of the BNSS, and to ascertain whether any specific allegation
has been made against the petitioners. In the event, the victim
has levelled specific allegations against any of the petitioners,
the prayer for anticipatory bail of such petitioner(s) shall be
rejected. However, insofar as the petitioner(s) against whom no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20388 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
allegation has been made in the said statement, they shall be
enlarged on pre-arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the
learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
7. The impugned order of the learned District Court is
modified to the above extent for passing a fresh order.
8. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.