Patna High Court
Raja YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Raja Yadav sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under IPC sections 364, 366 and 120(B) alleging kidnapping and conspiracy. He contended that he was falsely implicated, had no criminal record, and that his name appeared only through a co-accused's confessional statement. The State opposed the bail, citing the FIR’s allegation that the petitioner intended to sell or kill the victim and the victim’s Section 164 statement supporting the charge. The Court examined the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence presented. Considering the gravity of the offences and the victim’s corroboration, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioner's bail prayer was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the kidnapping and conspiracy charges.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 364, 366
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- criminal conspiracy
- false implication
- bail denial
- IPC
- CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43264 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2023 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Raja Yadav S/o Late Mishri Lal Yadav Resident of Village- Murli, Ward No.
05, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bachcha Yadav S/O Fekan Yadav R/O Village - Sukhasan ward no. 2, P.S. -
Kishanpur, Dist - Supaul
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Patla Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State. Earlier, notices issued to O.P. No. 2 was
validly served. However, none appears on behalf of the O.P. No.
2. Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in Kishanpur
P.S. case No. 40 of 2023 registered under Sections 364, 366,
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution allegation, in short, is that the
accused persons came to the house of the
complainant/informant, forcefully entered into the house and
took his niece and fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43264 of 2025(6) dt.05-02-2026
2/2
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
Earlier, a complaint petition was filed which was later converted
into F.I.R. It is further submitted that petitioner is not named in
the F.I.R. and his name transpired on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused. The petitioner is a distant relation of
victim girl.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned
APP submits that in the F.I.R. itself, allegation has been made
against the petitioner and other accused persons that they were
intending to sell or kill the victim. In her Section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement, the victim has supported the allegation made in the
F.I.R.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and nature and gravity of allegation, this Court is not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer is rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Pankaj/-
U T
Checking your session…