Patna High Court
Vikash Sahni @ Vikash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikash Sahni, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 96, 352, 303(2) and 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning the alleged abduction of a minor girl and theft of jewellery. The girl gave two conflicting statements: initially admitting a consensual relationship and leaving voluntarily, later alleging that the petitioner threatened her to hand over jewellery or face death and implicating an accomplice, Saurav Kumar. The police diary showed that Saurav Kumar was already in custody, casting doubt on the later statement. The petitioner, a student with no prior criminal record, offered an undertaking to appear for trial. Considering the contradictions, lack of antecedent, and the petitioner’s cooperation, the Court granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite contradictory statements by the minor witness.
- Whether the later statement implicating an alleged accomplice is reliable given police records.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or committing further offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 183, 303(2), 352, 61(1), 96
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- contradictory statements
- minor witness
- criminal antecedent
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail conditions
- false accusation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66343 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2025 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Vikash Sahni @ Vikash Kumar S/o Ashok Sahni Ashok sahni R/o Mohalla-
Rambagh, Ward No. 23, P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Madhumala Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard Ms. Madhumala Kumari, learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2025
registered for the offence under Sections 96, 352, 303(2) and
61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lodged on 14.04.2025 by
the informant, Rajendra Sah.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that in the morning, he found his minor daughter missing and
the cash amount/jewellery were also not found. Upon enquiry,
the role of the petitioner, his family members came which
followed the F.I.R..
4. Subsequently, the girl returned and though the
earlier statement before the Police by the girl recorded that she
was in relationship with the petitioner but as the father was not
agreeable, she left her house and upon knowledge that F.I.R. has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66343 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
been lodged, returned. This was recorded on 15.04.2025 but
later, the statement made by her under section 183 B.N.S.S. on
the same day, recorded that the petitioner asked her to move
alongwith jewellery/amount, else she will be killed.
5. Accordingly, she left alongwith the
amount/jewellery but when they reached the petitioner’s house,
the parents directed the boy to immediately get the girl returned
to her home, else they will be implicated. Though, she returned
home, but the amount/jewellery remained with the boy.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on
the same day, two different statement has been made by the girl,
actually, they were in relationship, she left the place on her own
but later, she has made a different statement, F.I.R. is there, he
shall be facing the trial.
7. Further submission is that in her subsequent
statement made by her, she made allegation against, Saurav
Kumar as one of the accomplice who was present at the spot.
However, the Police has recorded in paragraph no.44 of the case
diary that actually, in a case of Excise Act in Madhubani P.S.
Case No. 111 of 2025, Saurav Kumar was in custody since
27.03.2025. The last submission is that the petitioner is a
student/appearing for competitive exam and has no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66343 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
antecedent.
8. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
the girl in her subsequent statement has made allegation against
the petitioner.
9. Having heard the parties and going through the
facts of the case, allegation is there but this Court cannot ignore
the fact that the girl on the same day made two statements and
atleast part of the statement made by her has been found to be
untrue inasmuch as Saurav Kumar who she alleged was present
at the spot is/was in custody two weeks prior to the said
incident. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent, is a student,
appearing for competitive exam, F.I.R. is there, an undertaking
has been given that he shall be diligently appearing in trial, in
that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Darbhanga, in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 194
of 2025 subject to the following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66343 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to
show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds.
10. This Court would like to put on record its word of
appreciation for Ms. Madhumala Kumari, learned counsel
representing the petitioner for the proper assistance rendered in
the matter.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…