Patna High Court
Kamlesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Kamlesh Kumar was implicated in a kidnapping case (Sections 363 and 366 IPC) after the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC named him as having accompanied the co‑accused Ranjan Kumar in forcibly taking her, her ornaments and her two‑year‑old son. The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants, that he has a clean record, and that his name appears only because he knows the co‑accused. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement as proof of complicity. The Court examined the victim’s recovery from a rented house with the alleged paramour, the petitioner’s fair antecedent, and the lack of direct evidence linking him to the offence. It granted pre‑arrest bail on condition of a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, surrender within four weeks, and that one bailor be a close family member, invoking Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the victim’s statement implicating him.
- Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to justify denial of bail under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits the grant of bail in this circumstance.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- kidnapping
- IPC
- Section 363
- Section 366
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- fair antecedent
- victim statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73536 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2022 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Kamlesh Kumar S/O Sone Lal Sahni Resident of Village- Kothiya (Badi
Kothiya Sherpur), P.S.- Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 11-02-2026 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Karja P.S. Case No. 104 of 2022, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Based upon the written report, it is alleged that on
18.04.2022, the informant did not return to his home and his
mother had also gone at her relatives place. In the meanwhile,
his wife alongwith her two years old son, left her house, without
any information. It is further alleged that some unknown persons
have enticed away the wife of the informant and while fleeing
away, she also took away her ornaments and cash.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73536 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner referring to the FIR contended that the FIR has been
instituted against unknown miscreants, however, during the
course of investigation, the wife of the informant was recovered
from a rented house, where she has been residing with her
paramour, co-accused Ranjan Kumar, alongwith her son. It is
contended that the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, wherein she has stated that on the fateful
day, co-accused Ranjan Kumar had come with the petitioner,
who have forcefully taken her away. The statement of the victim
does not inspire any confidence that two persons had forcibly
entered the house and taken away a married woman alongwith
all her ornaments, cash and two years old son. The petitioner has
nothing to do with the present case, but only on account of he
being known to Ranjan Kumar, co-accused, his name has been
implicated in this case. The petitioner bears fair antecedent and
undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the proceeding of the
Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits
that the complicity of the petitioner is writ large from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73536 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the materials available on record, specially the fact the victim
was recovered from a rented house alongwith her alleged
paramour, besides the fair antecedent of the petitioner, let the
petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, (West) Muzaffarpur in
connection with Karja P.S. Case No. 104 of 2022, subject to the
conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the
bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U T
Checking your session…