Patna High Court
Rajan Kumar @ Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted where the FIR is founded merely on apprehension and the accused has a clean antecedent, provided standard bail conditions are imposed.
Summary
The petition petitioner, Rajan Kumar, was implicated in a FIR alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 341, 365, 504 and 506/34 of the IPC based on the complainant Sita Devi’s apprehension that her son was missing after a dispute over unpaid wages. The petitioner contended that he had no involvement, pointing out discrepancies between the victim’s statement and the FIR regarding the dates of the alleged incident, and highlighted his clean antecedent. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail but acknowledged that the victim had returned home. The Court examined whether the FIR, being founded merely on apprehension and lacking substantive evidence, justified denial of bail. Considering the victim’s return, the lack of concrete proof, and the petitioner’s clean record, the Court decided to grant anticipatory bail. The order imposed standard bail conditions and directed compliance with Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR is based solely on apprehension and lacks substantive evidence
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the victim’s return home justify the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 341, 365, 406, 420, 504, 506/34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- clean antecedent
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2901 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-444 Year-2023 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Rajan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar S/o Lakhindra Sah R/o Vill- Raksa Purvi
Tola, P.S.- Panapur, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pushpa Sinha,APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises
out of Karja Police Station Case No. 444 of 2023 dated
23.12.2023, disclosing the offence under Sections 406, 420,
341, 365, 504, 506/34 of the IPC lodged by the informant, Sita
Devi.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged
that she and her son, namely, Ranjit Kumar used to work in the
Kurkure Factory located in Raksa and sometimes, she used to
go to the factory vehicle to load and unload the factory goods.
Her son Ranjit Kumar's salary of two months was pending. On
demanding the same, the factory owner used to postpone the
salary by adopting dilly-dallying tactics. On 03.12.2023, till
evening her son did not return to home, so, on 4.12.2023, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2901 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
morning, she went to the factory in search of her son. When the
factory owners 1. Ranjan Kumar (petitioner herein), 2. Tipu
Kumar, 3. Rajesh Kumar were inquired regarding whereabouts
of her son, then all of them pretended to know nothing rather
abused and pushed her away. Accordingly, the present FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has
falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of
apprehension which would be evident from the narration of the
FIR itself. He further submits by referring to the statements
recorded by the victim, Ranjit Kumar on his return from Tamil
Nadu and the FIR which is said to have been lodged by his
mother/informant, there is discrepancy on the dates which
according to the informant’s statement, her son was missing
since 03.12.2023 while as per the statement recorded by the
victim, he was at his home till 04.12.2023, from-where the
petitioner is said to have taken the victim to Tamil Nadu.
Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in the paragraph-4
of the present petition.
5. On the other hand, learned APP opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but concedes that
the victim boy has returned to his home.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2901 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
6. Considering the fact that the FIR has been
lodged only on the basis of apprehension, the victim has
returned to his home and the petitioner has got clean antecedent,
this Court is inclined to grant the petitioners the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
7. This application for anticipatory bail is,
accordingly, allowed.
8. Let the petitioner, named above, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks
from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
West Muzaffarpur in connection with aforesaid Police Station
Case subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482 (2)
of the B.N.S.S. 2023, 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;
(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 bail bond by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2901 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
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
(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/her bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U T
Checking your session…