Patna High Court

Golu Kumar @ HarishversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the victim’s statement under section 164 implicated the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Golu Kumar, was named in an FIR for kidnapping under IPC sections 363, 366(A) and 34. He applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence, a clean record, and that no specific allegation was made against him, noting that four co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under CrPC section 164, which allegedly implicated the petitioner. The Patna High Court examined the standards for granting anticipatory bail and found the victim’s statement sufficient to deny the relief. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application and ordered the petitioner to surrender within six weeks, directing the trial court to consider any bail application thereafter on its merits.

Issues considered

What are the criteria for granting anticipatory bail in a kidnapping case under IPC sections 363, 366(A) and 34?
Does a victim’s statement under CrPC section 164, implicating the petitioner, justify denial of anticipatory bail?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A

Subjects

anticipatory bail
kidnapping
IPC
CrPC
section 164 statement
bail jurisprudence
trial court surrender

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21957 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2021 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Golu Kumar @ Harish Son of Bharat Sahni @ Bharat Sahani Resident of
                 Village- Gadha Hasan Ward No. 11, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur
                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     X Son of Y Resident of Village- Gadha Tasan, P.S.- Paroo, District-
                  Muzaffarpur
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Paroo P.S. Case No. 378 of 2021, dated 23.09.2021, lodged

                   under Section 363, 366(A) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

                   pending before the Court of A.C.J.M., Muzaffarpur.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   six named accused persons, including the present petitioner,

                   alleging that the accused persons have kidnapped the

                   informant’s daughter.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

                   further submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is

                   clean. Counsel further submits that there is no specific

                   allegation against the present petitioner. Counsel also submits
         Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21957 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                     2/2




                   that four other co-accused persons have already been granted

                   anticipatory bail by the Trial Court itself.

                                5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                   bail of the petitioner and submits that it has been acknowledged

                   in the rejection order that the alleged victim has given her

                   statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she has

                   supported the factum of her kidnapping and has specified the act

                   and role of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

                                6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is

                   not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                   Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is

                   hereby rejected.

                                7. It is directed to the petitioner to surrender before

                   the Trial Court within a period of 6 weeks from today. In case,

                   the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, then the Trial Court

                   is directed to pass order on his surrender-cum-bail application

                   on the same day without being prejudice that the anticipatory

                   bail of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court and the

                   Trial Court shall pass order on the merit of this case.



                                                                        (Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…