Patna High Court
Dinesh PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No. 357 of 2025) alleging kidnapping, assault and theft under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They contended that the allegations were false, stemming from a land dispute, and that the FIR lacked specific overt acts, especially a kidnapping. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order emphasized that the bail conditions could be cancelled for non‑compliance and that the observations would not bind the trial. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC and Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence sufficient to deny bail
- Whether the petitioners are likely to flee or tamper with evidence
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- assault
- false implication
- land dispute
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure
- B.N.S.
- B.N.S.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6454 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Dinesh Prasad S/o Late Aami Chan Prasad R/o Village - Dhekaha Luxman
Tola, Jasauli, P.S - Motihari Muffasil, District - East Champaran
2. Kamtalal Kumar S/o Dinesh Prasad R/o Village - Dhekaha Luxman Tola,
Jasauli, P.S - Motihari Muffasil, District - East Champaran
3. Sunaina Devi W/o Dinesh Prasad R/o Village - Dhekaha Luxman Tola,
Jasauli, P.S - Motihari Muffasil, District - East Champaran
4. Nagendra Prasad S/o SakhiChan Prasad R/o Village - Dhekaha Luxman
Tola, Jasauli, P.S - Motihari Muffasil, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Ranjana Srivastava, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No. 357 of 2025
registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 126(2), 115(2),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6454 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
118(1), 117(2), 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they
along with others had kidnapped the nephew of the informant
and when the local people saw them, they fled away. It is
further alleged that the petitioners and others assaulted the
informant’s side and snatched away the gold chain.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case on
account of land dispute between the parties. It has been
submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against
the petitioners and no specific overt act has been alleged against
them. It has also been submitted that no such incident as
alleged has occurred and from bare perusal of the F.I.R., it
would be evident that no case of kidnapping is being made out.
It has lastly been submitted that petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have
clean antecedents, whereas petitioner No. 2 is an accused in one
case, bearing Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No. 586 of 2020, in
which, he is on bail.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6454 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/4
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let
the petitioners, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of their arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court where
the case is pending in connection with Motihari Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 357 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to
the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their
close relative and the other shall be a local resident.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned
Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he has concealed their criminal antecedent, the
Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6454 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
of their bail bond. However, the acceptance of bail bond
in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed
for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…