Patna High Court
Arjun Yadav @ Arjun RoyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers from Sukarvegchak, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (PS Case No. 496 of 2025) alleging kidnapping, assault and other offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners threatened the informant with a pistol and were involved in the disappearance of the informant's daughter. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated, citing the victim’s statement under section 183 that she had married the co‑accused and that the petitioners were not involved. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the allegations. After considering the facts, the court granted anticipatory bail on the condition of a bail‑bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and subject to the conditions of section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious allegations against them
- Whether the statements of the victim under section 183 B.N.S.S. negate the prosecution’s case
- Whether the conditions of section 482(2) B.N.S.S. justify granting bail
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 137(2), 140(3), 183, 3(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- section 482(2)
- section 183
- kidnapping
- assault
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35103 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-496 Year-2025 Thana- KHUSRUPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Arjun Yadav @ Arjun Roy S/o Baljeet Yadav Resident of Village-
Sukarvegchak, PS- Khushrupur, Distt.- Patna
2. Sudhir Yadav @ Sudhir Kumar S/o Arjun Yadav @ Arjun Roy Resident of
Village- Sukarvegchak, PS- Khushrupur, Distt.- Patna
3. Raju Yadav @ Raju Kumar S/o Arjun Yadav @ Arjun Roy Resident of
Village- Sukarvegchak, PS- Khushrupur, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sharma, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 21-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a
case in connection with Khushrupur P.S. Case No. 496 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Section137(2),
126(2), 115(2), 3(5), 140(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the
informant who happens to the victim of the case was found
missing from the house. It is alleged that when he asked his wife
about the whereabouts of her victim daughter she told that she
had gone for answering the call of nature but she did not return
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35103 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
2/3
for considerable long time. It has further been alleged that co-
accused Raunak Kumar and two unknown boys kidnapped his
daughter. It is further alleged that when the informant went to
the house of co-accused Raunak Kumar, he was also found
missing, while the petitioners assaulted him. It has further been
alleged that in the meanwhile petitioner no.1 who brought a
country made pistol and threatened the informant to go away
from the place, otherwise he will be killed and when he called
on the mobile phone of co-accused Raunak Kumar, it was found
switched off.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Referring to
the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners have
submitted that in the statement of the victim recorded under
section 183 of the B.N.S.S, she has stated that she has herself
married co-accused Raunak Kumar, who himself was a minor
and referring to section 183 of the B.N.S.S., learned counsel for
the petitioners has submitted that the victim has stated that
petitioners were not involved in the case. It has further been
submitted that the petitioners are family members of co-accused
Raunak Kumar and they would not help co-accused Raunak
Kumar in such acts. It has lastly been submitted that petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35103 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
3/3
have got no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their
arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be
enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court
concerned, in connection with Khushrupur P.S. Case No. 496 of
2025, subject to conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of
the B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
niku/rajesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.