Patna High Court

Chandan Prajapati @ ChandanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 4 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations were specific, the victim’s statement under Section 183 was substantive, and the offence was grave.

Summary

The petitioner, Chandan Prajapati, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 87 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that he, together with co‑accused Sumit Gond, abducted the minor niece of an informant and took her to the residence of co‑accused Karim Ansari, where she was allegedly forced into marriage and sexual relations. The victim was later recovered and, under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., gave a statement implicating the petitioner and the other accused. The petitioner claimed innocence, clean antecedents, and that the allegations were based merely on suspicion. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific accusations and the victim’s recorded statement. Considering the gravity of the offence, the specificity of the charge and the victim’s testimony, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the specific accusations under Sections 87 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
Whether the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. suffices to deny anticipatory bail
Whether the petitioner’s claim of innocence and clean antecedents outweighs the seriousness of the alleged offences

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 3(5), 87

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal procedure
Section 87
Section 3(5)
Section 183
forced marriage
kidnapping
minor victim
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6083 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2025 Thana- VIJAYEPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Chandan Prajapati @ Chandan Son of Balgobind Prajapati Resident of
                 Village- Karmchar, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj, Bihar

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner       :        Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate
                                                   Ms. Diksha Kumari, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                  2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 87 and 3(5)

                   of the B.N.S..

                                  3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this

                   petitioner, along with co-accused Sumit Gond, took away the

                   minor niece of informant to the house of co-accused Karim

                   Ansari and thereafter, she went missing.

                                  4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                   committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to the

                   occurrence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6083 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       merely on suspicion. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

                                    5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

                       vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

                       the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

                       with specific accusation that he, along with co-accused Sumit

                       Gond, took away minor niece of the informant to the house of

                       co-accused Karim Ansari. During course of investigation, the

                       victim was recovered and in her statement recorded under

                       Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she has supported the prosecution

                       case and has clearly stated that this petitioner, along with co-

                       accused Sumit Gond, took her to the house of co-accused Karim

                       Ansari and thereafter, co-accused Karim Ansari forcibly

                       solemnized marriage with her and established physical relations.

                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, specific and direct nature of accusation, statement of the

                       victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. and gravity

                       of offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

                       petitioner is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…