Patna High Court
Anish Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to strict conditions.
Summary
Anish Kumar Singh was arrested in connection with a 2022 FIR alleging kidnapping (IPC s.363), kidnapping for marriage (IPC s.366(a)) and abetment (IPC s.34) of the informant's daughter, who later allegedly committed suicide in Surat. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, that he was falsely implicated, and that there was no evidence linking him to any crime, emphasizing his clean antecedent and the three‑year lapse without police action. The State and the informant opposed bail, asserting the petitioner’s role in the kidnapping and the victim’s death. The court examined the submissions, noted the victim’s suicide, and considered the lack of substantive evidence, deciding to grant bail with a Rs.10,000 bond and specific conditions. The order also stipulated that any breach of conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged kidnapping, kidnapping for marriage and alleged involvement in a victim's suicide.
- Whether the evidence on record sufficiently justifies continued detention of the petitioner.
- Whether the provisions of IPC sections 363, 366(a) and 34, and the POCSO Act, are applicable to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366(a)
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- IPC 363
- IPC 366(a)
- IPC 34
- suicide
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69050 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-363 Year-2022 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Anish Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Jagarnath Singh, R/o Village - Sirisiya, P.S.-
Barhara, District - Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Devi, Wife of Sri Laxman Singh, R/o Village and P.O.- Fuha, P.S.-
Barhara, District - Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sharda Kumari, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 08-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh; Mr. Manoj
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party No.2 and Ms. Sharda Kumari, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Barhara P.S. Case No. 363 of 2022 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(a) and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that her daughter had eloped along with one Anish
Kumar Singh (petitioner) on his allurement with Rs.65-70,000/-
and they were traceless.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69050 of 2025(4) dt.08-01-2026
2/4
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this
case and in fact, the victim had gone along with the petitioner
out of her own sweet will and they have performed marriage
and staying together in Surat. It has further been submitted that
even the police have not taken any steps for recovery of the
child for the next three years after lodging of the present FIR
and only when the news of the death of the victim on account of
her committing suicide was reported, the petitioner was
apprehended in the present case. It has been submitted that there
is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the present
incident and no case under the relevant sections of the IPC and
even POCSO Act is made out. It has lastly been submitted that
the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in custody since
06.04.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the
petitioner is instrumental not only in kidnapping the daughter of
the informant but also subsequently killed her.
6. Learned A.P.P. has also vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and has stated that the petitioner had kidnapped
the girl initially and subsequently she died under mysterious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69050 of 2025(4) dt.08-01-2026
3/4
circumstances and a UD case was also registered at Surat.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the fact that the petitioner is in
custody since 06.04.2025 and from the records, it seems that the
victim had committed suicide at Surat, let the petitioner, above
named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the
case is pending/successor court in connection with Barhara P.S.
Case No. 363 of 2022, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall
be his close relative and the other shall be local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically
present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive
dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail
bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by
the court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in
similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However,
the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69050 of 2025(4) dt.08-01-2026
4/4
mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
9. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.