Patna High Court
Dhruv Baitha @ Dhuri KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhruv Baitha, was erroneously named in an FIR for an alleged abduction and possible homicide under Sections 96 and 34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that Baitha, along with co‑accused, abducted the informant's sister, who later disappeared. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and highlighted the victim's statement recorded under Section 183, wherein she declared a consensual relationship with Baitha, voluntary travel, and marriage, with no accusation against him. The victim’s statement indicated she left home of her own will, stayed with the petitioner, and later married, undermining the prosecution’s claim of abduction. Considering the lack of criminal antecedents, the victim’s voluntary statement, and the absence of incriminating evidence, the court ordered bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to the petitioner accused under Sections 96 and 34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
- Does the victim's statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. negate the prosecution's case of abduction and related offences?
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 34, 96
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- victim statement
- Section 96 B.N.S.
- Section 34 B.N.S.
- Section 183 B.N.S.
- abduction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6895 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Dhruv Baitha @ Dhuri Kumar S/O Suraj Baitha R/O Village- Sabalpur
Gulmahiyachak, P.S.- Naddi, District- Patna. wrongly mentioned in FIR as
Dhuri Baitha son of Suresh Baitha, resident of village- Sabalpur Bangali Tola,
P.S.- Sonpur, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sonpur
P. S. Case No. 89 of 2025, dated 04-02-2025 instituted for the
offence punishable under Sections 96 and 34 of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
01.02.2025, while the sister of the informant was returning
home after purchasing household items from Patna, it is alleged
that petitioner and co-accused Ranjan Kumar Yadav along with
some others, abducted her. The informant apprehends that the
accused might have caused the death of his sister or subjected
her to trafficking.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6895 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that after the recovery of the
victim, her statement was recorded under Section 183 of the
B.N.S.S., wherein, she categorically stated that she had been in
love with the petitioner for the past four years. She further stated
that both her parents had died and her brother and sister-in-law
did not treat her properly, often threatening her. According to
her statement, she left home of her own will and went to
Danapur Temple with a villager named Pappu, where she met
Ranjan Kumar and his female friend. From there, she reached
Danapur Junction and then boarded a train to Gujarat. After
reaching Gujarat, she met the petitioner and stayed with him in a
rented room for three days. Thereafter, her brothers went there
and harassed them. Then both of them went to Surat and then to
Ara, where they married at a temple. It is submitted that as per
the victim’s statement, there is no allegation against the
petitioner and she voluntarily went with the petitioner. After
attaining the age of 18, she was released from care home and
went to the house of her in-laws. Lastly, it is submitted that the
petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.04.2025 and has
no criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has already been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6895 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
submitted in this case.
5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge-15, Saran (Chapra), in connection with Sonpur
P. S. Case No. 89 of 2025.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
U
Checking your session…