Patna High Court

Vinod Rai @Vinod KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 May 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ALOK KUMAR SINHA

Holding

The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Vinod Rai applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case of alleged kidnapping and abduction under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, lured the victim under the pretext of a land deal, intoxicated her, and took her to Delhi where a wrongful act was committed. The petitioner claimed innocence, clean antecedents and highlighted a nine‑day delay in filing the FIR, while the co‑accused had already been granted bail. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS Act accused the petitioner of intoxicating her and participating in the abduction. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s testimony, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences alleged under the IPC.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the petitioner’s clean antecedents warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 140(3), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
kidnapping
abduction
Indian Penal Code
BNSS Act
victim statement
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23234 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2025 Thana- Hattha District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Vinod Rai @Vinod Kumar Son of Ramjatan Singh R/o Village - Loharkha
                 Piyar, P.S. - Hattha, Dist. - Muzaffarpur.
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Poonam Kumari
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Madhura Nand Jha
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   06-05-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Hattha P.S. Case No. 68 of 2025, registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(3), 3(5) of I.P.C.

                                3. The prosecution case is that the informant, Pawan

                   Sahni, along with his wife Gudiya Devi and son Aryan Kumar,

                   came to Muzaffarpur on 28.05.2025. About three months earlier,

                   Gudiya Devi had allegedly paid Rs. 6,00,000/- to Manoj Rai for

                   purchase of land. On 01.06.2025, Manoj Rai, Vinod Rai (the

                   petitioner) and Vinita Devi allegedly took Gudiya Devi and her

                   son on the pretext of discussing the land deal, after which they

                   did not return. It is alleged that the accused persons had

                   abducted them.

                                4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23234 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
                                                       2/2




                     the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He is

                     a person of clean antecedent. Co-accused Beenita Devi has been

                     granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. He has further

                     submitted that FIR has been lodged after nine days of the

                     occurrence.

                                  5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has

                     opposed the prayer for bail.

                                  6. In the statement of the victim recorded under

                     Section 183 of BNSS, she has categorically stated that the

                     petitioner did wrong with her after lacing her drink with

                     intoxicant due to which the victim fell unconscious. There is

                     also statement to the effect that the petitioner along with co-

                     accused Manoj Rai took the victim on a four-wheeler and later

                     took her to Delhi where the wrongful act was committed with

                     the victim by the petitioner. Considering the seriousness of the

                     direct allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant

                     privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is

                     rejected.



                                              (Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kundan/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…