Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Raj Kumar @ Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, directing release on bail if arrested within eight weeks.

Summary

The petitioner, Raj Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case (PS Gwalpara, Case No. 167/2024) alleging his involvement in kidnapping under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The FIR was lodged 38 days after the alleged incident, and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S. denied any kidnapping, stating she left home voluntarily. The petitioner asserted his innocence, clean antecedents, and highlighted the unexplained delay in filing the FIR. The State opposed the bail, but the court considered the victim’s denial, the delay, and the petitioner’s background. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing that if arrested within eight weeks the petitioner be released on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the delay in lodging the FIR and the victim's denial of kidnapping
  • Whether the petitioner is likely to be arrested under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
  • Whether the conditions of Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. justify the grant of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

  • B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 183, 3(5), 482(2), 96

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • delay in FIR
  • victim statement
  • clean antecedents
  • criminal procedure
  • Section 482
  • Section 183

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21977 of 2026

                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2024 Thana- GWALPARA District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 Raj Kumar @ Sumit Kumar S/o- Jay Kishor Yadav R/v- Jayram Parsi W.No-
                 2, Ps- Gwalpara Dist- Madhepura

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :       Ms. Pooja Prasad, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Manoj, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   15-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                  2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 96

                   and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

                                  3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this

                   petitioner, along with other F.I.R. named accused persons,

                   kidnapped the daughter of informant.

                                  4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                   committed no offence. The present F.I.R. has been lodged after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21977 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
                                            2/3




          inordinate delay of 38 days and there is no plausible explanation

          for the same which itself makes the entire prosecution case

          doubtful. During investigation, the victim was recovered and in

          her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she

          denied the factum of kidnapping and categorically stated that no

          one kidnapped her rather she left her house out of her own sweet

          will and went to the house of her Mausi at Delhi. Petitioner

          claims clean antecedents.

                        5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

          petitioner.

                        6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the

          B.N.S.S., delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and clean antecedents of

          the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

          petitioner is allowed.

                        7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within

          a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named

          petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.

          10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Udakishunganj,

          Madhepura in connection with Gwalpara P.S. Case No. 167 of
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21977 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of

                       the B.N.S.S..



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.