Patna High Court
Sachin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied to petitioner No.1 (Sachin Kumar) and granted to petitioners Nos.2‑4 subject to bail bonds and conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, comprising Sachin Kumar and three of his family members, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a kidnapping case (Patahi P.S. Case No. 333 of 2023) involving offences under Sections 363, 366A, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The court examined the allegations, noting that the primary accusation of kidnapping was against Sachin Kumar, while the other three were merely family members. It declined to grant anticipatory bail to Sachin Kumar, directing him to surrender within two weeks and seek regular bail, with a warning of arrest if he fails to do so. Conversely, the court allowed anticipatory bail for the three family members, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order was limited to the present application and does not prejudice further proceedings against Sachin Kumar.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the principal accused in a kidnapping case under the IPC and POCSO Act
- Whether family members of the principal accused, who are co‑accused, are entitled to anticipatory bail
- What conditions may be imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS when granting anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- bail conditions
- family members
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55088 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2023 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Sachin Kumar S/O Haresh Mahto Resident of Village-Ratan Sayar, P.S. -
Patahi, Dist - East Champaran
2. Jogni Devi W/O Haresh Mahto Resident of Village-Ratan Sayar, P.S. -
Patahi, Dist - East Champaran
3. Haresh Mahto S/O Kedar Mahto Resident of Village-Ratan Sayar, P.S. -
Patahi, Dist - East Champaran
4. Anita Kumari @ Anita Bua Kumari @ Anita Devi D/O Kedar Mahto
Resident of Village-Ratan Sayar, P.S. - Patahi, Dist - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Devi W/O Ajay Mahto Resident of Village-Ratan Sayar, P.S. - Patahi,
Dist - East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar
Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 20-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with
Patahi P.S. Case No. 333 of 2023 registered for offences under
Sections 363, 366A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The petitioners are accused of kidnapping the
victim girl and the victim has not been recovered by the Police
yet.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55088 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are quite innocent and have not committed any
offence. He further submits that the main allegation of
kidnapping the victim is against petitioner No. 1, Sachin Kumar,
and petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are the family members of petitioner
No. 1.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail.
6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and
have gone through the materials available on record.
7. Considering the allegation levelled against the
petitioner no. 1, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the petitioner no. 1.
8. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 for
anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. He is directed to surrender
in the Court below within a period of two weeks from today and
seek regular bail, failing which the Superintendent of Police,
East Champaran, Motihari will take all steps for the arrest of the
petitioner.
9. As far as petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned,
considering the fact that they are the family members of the
main accused, their prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55088 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
3/3
10. Accordingly, let the petitioner nos. 2 to 4, above-
named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within four
weeks from today in the Court below, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned concerned Court below, East Champaran, Motihari in
connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 333 of 2023 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
11. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present application
and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner no. 1 at any
subsequent stage of the proceedings.
12. In view of the above, the application is partly
allowed.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari through
FAX for its compliance forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…