Patna High Court
Raushan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail for all three petitioners is to be denied.
Summary
The petitioners – Raushan Kumar, Raju Sahani and Suman Kumar – were named in an FIR for allegedly kidnapping a 16‑year‑old girl with the intent of illicit intercourse or marriage. Earlier, anticipatory bail for the first two petitioners had been rejected and that for the third withdrawn. The petitioners argued that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, wherein she said she married of her own free will to a person not among the petitioners, warranted bail. The State contended that the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail by the coordinate bench remained valid and that there were no changed circumstances. The High Court examined the victim’s statement, the prior bail orders and the lack of any new material, and consequently rejected the anticipatory bail applications of all three petitioners, directing the trial court to consider regular bail upon their surrender.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in view of the victim’s voluntary statement under Section 164 CrPC.
- Whether the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail by the coordinate bench constitutes a binding precedent that precludes a fresh grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164, 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- IPC
- CrPC
- victim statement
- bail jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34003 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-837 Year-2022 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Raushan Kumar S/O Raju Sahani R/O Village- Amaitha, P.S- Saraiya, Distt.-
Muzaffarpur.
2. Raju Sahani S/O Basdev Sahani @ Basudev Sahani R/O Village- Amaitha,
P.S- Saraiya, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
3. Suman Kumar S/O Kailash Sahani R/O Village- Amaitha, P.S- Saraiya,
Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saurav Anand
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Indu Kumari Srivastava
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
8 15-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending their arrest in connection with Saraiya P.S.
Case No. 837 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 363, 366(A), 34 of IPC.
3. As per FIR, allegation against petitioners is to
kidnap the minor daughter of informant aged about 16 years
for the purpose of illicit intercourse/ marriage with another
person.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that earlier anticipatory bail of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34003 of 2025(8) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
petitioner no. 1 namely, Raushan Kumar and petitioner no. 2
namely, Raju Sahani was rejected by one of the learned co-
ordinate Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc. No. 62751 of
2023 vide order dated 16.10.2023, whereas anticipatory bail
of petitioner no. 3 namely, Suman Kumar was withdrawn. It is
pointed out that on the last occasion learned co-ordinate
Bench called for statement of victim in connections with
Saraiya P.S. Case No. 13 of 2023, where she stated nothing
incriminating against these petitioners rather she stated that
she out of her own sweet will solemnized marriage with one
Rupesh Kumar, who is not the petitioner for the present. It is
submitted that in view of statement of victim as recorded in
Saraiya P.S. Case No. 837 of 2022, all three petitioners
deserves bail who are men of clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that on earlier occasions considering the merit and
statement of victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
the anticipatory bail prayer of petitioners was rejected by
learned co-ordinate Bench and there is no changed
circumstances. It is pointed out that statement of victim qua
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34003 of 2025(8) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
another co-accused person in another criminal case i.e.,
Saraiya P.S. Case as discussed aforesaid, is of no bearing
with present case.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as on earlier occasions the prayer of bail of
petitioners stands rejected by one of the learned co-ordinate
Bench as discussed aforesaid, considering the statement of
victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., accordingly, the
prayer of anticipatory bail of all above-named three
petitioners stands rejected.
7. However, upon surrender, learned trial court is
directed to decide the prayer of regular bail of petitioners in
accordance with law without being prejudiced by any of the
observation of this Court.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…