Patna High Court
BIPIN MISTRY @ VIPIN MISTRIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail subject to the conditions imposed under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Bipin Mistry, was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he and co‑accused demanded a ransom for the return of a missing minor girl and were charged under Sections 96, 140(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S.S. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged after a long delay, that he was falsely implicated, and that the victim’s statement did not incriminate him. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the vague nature of the allegations, the extended period of custody, and the fact that a charge‑sheet had already been filed. Considering these factors and the provisions of Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S., the court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail with specified conditions. The bail order required a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding attendance in court and the presence of a close relative as a bailor.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. given the nature of the allegations and the delay in filing the FIR.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner are sufficiently specific to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the victim’s statement, recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., exonerates the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 140(2), 180, 183, 480(3), 61(2), 96
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- minor
- delay in FIR
- section 480(3)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25578 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria
======================================================
Bipin Mistry @ Vipin Mistri S/O Shibu Mistry R/O Vill.- Thuthi, P.S.-
Chautham, Dist.- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
02. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Chautham P.S. Case No. 107 of 2025
registered for the alleged offences under Sections 96, 140(2),
61(2) of BNS.
03. As per prosecution case, the minor daughter of the
informant went missing and three months thereafter, the
petitioner and other co-accused told the informant that they got
married her daughter into a rich family and they demanded
Rs.Two lakhs if she wanted to see her daughter. The informant
informed to her family about this and a panchayati was called
and subsequently, on failure of panchayati, FIR was registered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25578 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case. The daughter of the informant went missing on 22.01.2025
and allegation against the petitioner is of 23.04.2025. The FIR
has been lodged on 02.05.2025. The delay in lodging the FIR
shows due deliberation and after thought and false implication
of the petitioner. Except the allegation made in the FIR, there is
no material to show the complicity of the petitioner in the
alleged occurrence. The victim girl has been recovered and her
age was medically assessed to be 17-18 years whereas the
document of Secondary School Examination Board shows her
age to be more than 18 years on the date of the occurrence. The
statement of the victim girl has been recorded under Sections
180 and 183 of BNSS wherein she has not made any allegation
against the petitioner though she has made allegation against
other co-accused persons. The petitioner is having antecedent of
two cases and he is in custody since 14.07.2025. Charge sheet
has been submitted.
05. Learned APP opposes the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner.
06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25578 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
vague nature of allegation against the petitioner, period of
custody of the petitioner and submission of charge sheet, the
petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria/concerned Court in
connection with Chautham P.S. Case No. 107 of 2025, subject to
the conditions mentioned in Section 480(3) of B.N.S.S. and also
the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative
of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on
each and every date fixed by the court below.
(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive
dates or in violation of the terms of the bail,
the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable
to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
U T
Checking your session…