Patna High Court
Bambam Harijan @ Bambam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner was named in the FIR, the offences were serious, and the applicant’s delay in seeking bail was inordinate.
Summary
The petitioner, Bambam Harijan, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a 2016 kidnapping case (PS No.182) alleging offences under sections 363, 366A and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was one of the accused who abducted the informant’s granddaughter, and the victim’s statement recorded under section 164 of the CrPC named him as a participant. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, had no prior knowledge of the case, and that the victim was a major with no criminal antecedent, warranting bail. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner’s inclusion in the FIR, the seriousness of the kidnapping charge, the delay of more than seven years before seeking anticipatory bail, and the victim’s recorded statement. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the material evidence, and the inordinate delay, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an accused named in the FIR for kidnapping after a delay of more than seven years.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under sections 363, 366A and 34 IPC and the victim’s statement under section 164 CrPC preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- IPC sections 363, 366A, 34
- section 164 CrPC
- delay in bail application
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27594 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2016 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka
======================================================
Bambam Harijan @ Bambam Kumar Son of Bishundeo Harijan @ Bishundeo
Das @ Bishnu Deo Das R/O Vill.- Sahua, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this application prays for bail
apprehending his arrest in connection with Rajoun P.S. Case
no.182 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under
sections 363, 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that her natini (daughter’s daughter) was kidnapped by the
accused persons including the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He had no
information nor knowledge about the pendency of the instant
application. Referring to the ordersheet brought on record, it is
submitted that no process was issued against him. It is further
submitted that the victim is a major. The petitioner has no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27594 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
criminal antecedent and as such he be enlarged on bail.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State who submits that the petitioner is named in
the FIR as one of the accused involved in the kidnapping of the
granddaughter of the informant. The FIR was registered on
12.6.2016 and it is more than seven years later that the
petitioner moved the learned Court below for anticipatory bail
and further after rejection of the same in December 2023 he
waited for another two years for moving this Court for
anticipatory bail. Further referring to the order of the learned
trial Court, learned APP submits that the statement of the victim
was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has named
the petitioner as being involved in abduction and that the
petitioner kept her in her house where the victim also become
pregnant.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner being named in the
FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation
including the statement of the victim recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C. which finds mention in the order of the learned trial
Court and specially in a case of the year 2016, the petitioner
having moved for anticipatory bail in this Court in the year
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27594 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
2026, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
anticipatory bail and the same is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
Checking your session…