Patna High Court
Ranjan Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjan Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case (Sonepur PS Case No. 89 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 96 and 34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR alleged that he, along with co‑accused Dhuri Kumar, abducted the informant’s sister, with a possible charge of murder or human trafficking. The petitioner contended that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS showed she left voluntarily, was in a consensual relationship with the co‑accused, travelled, married, and made no allegation against him. The State opposed the anticipatory bail, noting that only regular bail had been granted to the co‑accused. Considering the victim’s statement and the co‑accused’s regular bail, the Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, imposing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and specific conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Sections 96 and 34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS negates the basis for arrest.
- Whether the grant of regular bail to the co‑accused influences the decision on anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 34, 482(2), 96
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 96
- Section 34
- Section 183
- Section 482
- false implication
- victim statement
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25290 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Ranjan Kumar Yadav S/O Suresh Rai R/O Village- Sabalpur, Bangali Tola,
P.S.- Sonepur, Distt.- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Uday Mahto S/O Brahmdeo Mahto R/O Village- Sabalpur Bangali Tola,
Raipur, Hasanpur, Gangapar, P.S- Sonepur, Distt.- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Suman, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sonpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025 registered on 04-02-2025
for the offence punishable under Sections 96 and 34 of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case as emerges from the FIR is
that on 01.02.2025, while sister of the informant was returning
home after purchasing household items from Patna, it is alleged
that petitioner and co-accused, Dhuri Kumar along with some
other accused persons abducted her. The informant apprehends
that the accused might have committed murder of his sister or
subjected her to human trafficking. Accordingly, the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25290 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this
case on the basis of suspicion only. Learned counsel further
submits that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section
183 of the B.N.S.S., has categorically stated that she had been
in love with the co-accused, Dhuri Kumar @ Dhruv Kumar for
the past four years. According to her statement. she left her
home out of her own free will and went to Danapur Temple with
a villager named Pappu, where she met Ranjan Kumar
(petitioner) and his female friend. From there, she reached
Danapur Junction and then boarded a train to Gujarat. After
reaching Gujarat, she met with the co-accused, Dhuri Kumar @
Dhruv Kumar and stayed with him in a rented room for three
days. Thereafter, her brothers went there and harassed them.
Then both of them went to Surat and then to Ara, where they
married in a temple. It is submitted that as per the victim's
statement, there is no allegation against the petitioner and she
voluntarily went with the the co-accused, Dhuri Kumar @
Dhruv Kumar. After attaining the age of 18, she was released
from care home and went to the house of her in-laws, Lastly, it
is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and
the co-accused, namely, Dhruv Baitha @ Dhuri Kumar with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25290 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
whom she/victim has been stated to enter into the marriage, has
been granted regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on 04.02.2026 vide Cr. Misc. no. 6895 of 2026.
5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail and submits that the co-accused has been
granted regular bail not the anticipatory bail.
6. Regard being had to the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and considering the statement of the
victim made under Section 183 of the BNSS and the main co-
accused has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench, this
Court is inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail upon
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran (Chapra), in connection with
Sonpur P. S. Case No. 89 of 2025 subject to the as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following
conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the
family member/relative of the petitioner(s)
who shall provide official document to show
his/her bona fide;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25290 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear
on each and every date before the Trial
Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason
will entail cancellation of his/their bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
way try to induce or promise or threat the
witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his/their bail
bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U T
Checking your session…