Patna High Court
Durgesh Lal Harijan @ Durgesh HarijanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Durgesh Lal Harijan was arrested in a kidnapping case (IPC §§363, 366, 34) arising from a 2020 incident in Kishanganj. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, abducted the wife of an informant and her minor daughter, while the victim’s statements under CrPC §§161 and 164 were contradictory regarding whether she was enticed or forcefully kidnapped. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, highlighted a sixteen‑day delay between the alleged occurrence and the FIR, and pointed to the lack of criminal antecedents and the fact that co‑accused had been granted bail in a similar case. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. After considering the facts, the court decided to enlarge bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a kidnapping case despite contradictory victim statements and delay in filing the FIR
- Whether the precedent of bail granted to co‑accused in a similar case warrants bail in the present case
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- IPC
- CrPC
- delay in FIR
- contradictory statements
- judicial custody
- precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6517 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2020 Thana- KISHANGANJ District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Durgesh Lal Harijan @ Durgesh Harijan son of Vimal Lal Harijan Resident of
Village -Tola Baigana Police Station- Terhagachh District- Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Sessions Trial No. 335 of 2025 arising out of Kishanganj
P.S. Case No. 440 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 363, 366 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the wife
of the informant has gone to the bank with her minor daughter.
When she did not return, the informant started searching for her,
and he came to know that the petitioner, along with others, had
abducted her.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no
offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6517 of 2026(4) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the date of
occurrence is 05.11.2020, whereas the FIR was lodged on
21.11.2020 after the passage of sixteen days, and the delay has not
been explained. He further submits that during the course of the
investigation, the victim was recovered, and she has given her
statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. In
her statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., she has stated that
she was enticed by the petitioner and others, whereas in her
statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., she has stated that she was
forcefully kidnapped. Her hands and legs were tied. From perusal
of the statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is clear that she had
returned after five days, whereas the FIR was lodged after sixteen
days of the occurrence. He further submits that the versions of the
victim u/s 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. are contradictory. It is further
submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have been
granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.03.2026
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 91398 of 2025. Moreover, a statement has
been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no
criminal antecedent and they are languishing in judicial custody
since 23.09.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6517 of 2026(4) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The above named
petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kishanganj in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 335 of 2025 arising out of Kishanganj P.S. Case
No. 440 of 2020.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-
U T
Checking your session…