Patna High Court

Ram Pravesh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The court denied bail to the petitioner, holding that the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS substantiates the prosecution’s case.

Summary

The petitioner, Ram Pravesh Mahto, applied for bail in a criminal case (PS Bhutahi Case No. 108/2025) alleging kidnapping of a girl under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the victim left her home of her own volition, and that his only connection was as the father of a co‑accused. The State opposed the bail, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which alleged that the accused, including the petitioner, took her to Tamil Nadu against her will. The Court, after considering the victim’s statement and the seriousness of the alleged offence, refused to grant bail at this stage. It directed the trial court to expedite the trial and allowed the petitioner to renew the bail application if the trial is not concluded within five months.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS establishes the petitioner’s participation in the alleged kidnapping
Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement warrants continued custody pending trial

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 87

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Section 87 BNSS
Section 183 BNSS
kidnapping
victim statement
trial expedite

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2369 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2025 Thana- BHUTAHI District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Ram Pravesh Mahto Son of Late Dularchand Mahto R/o Vill.- Araria, Ward
                 No.- 14, P.O.- Araria, P.S.- Kanhauli, Dist.- Sitamarhi.


                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar

           2.    X Wife of Sri Chandeshwar Mahto R/o- At and P.O.- Dostiya Ward No.- 11,
                 P.S.- Bhutahi, Dist.- Sitamarhi.


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sitaram Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Braj Kishore Pd., APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   23-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

                               2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bhutahi

                   P.S. Case No. 108 of 2025 instituted for the offences under

                   Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                               3. Accusation against the accused persons including

                   the petitioner is of luring away the victim girl on the pretext of

                   marriage.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2369 of 2026(3) dt.23-02-2026
                                            2/3




          Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner never

          kidnapped the victim and, as a matter of fact, the petitioner is

          being dragged in this case merely because he happens to be the

          father of the main co-accused. Learned counsel further

          contended that there is love affair between the co-accused

          Ashish Kumar and the victim and the victim left her house on

          her own sweet will. It has been submitted on behalf of the

          petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2025 and

          has one criminal antecedent.

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

          opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that

          victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS

          has supported the case of the prosecution and has specifically

          stated that the accused persons including the petitioner took her

          to Tamil Nadu, against her will.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case as also Section 183 BNSS statement of the victim,

          this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this

          stage.

                       7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the

          petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

                       8. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2369 of 2026(3) dt.23-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                                  9. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to

                     renew the prayer for grant of bail before the Trial Court if the

                     trial is not concluded within a period of five months from today.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.