Patna High Court
Ranjan PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties and the condition of personal appearance at each trial date.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjan Paswan, was charged under IPC sections 366, 376, 379 and 120(B) for alleged kidnapping, forced sexual intercourse, robbery and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution alleged that he and co‑accused abducted a married woman, took her to Delhi, forced a relationship and planned to sell her in Mumbai, from which she escaped. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, the victim had eloped voluntarily, no medical report or Section 164 statement was on record, and a co‑accused had already been granted bail in a similar case. He surrendered on 30‑06‑2025 and charges were framed on 29‑08‑2025. After considering the lack of substantive evidence, the petitioner’s clean record and the conditions of the case, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to his personal appearance at each trial date.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving offences under IPC sections 366, 376, 379 and 120(B) given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary material.
- Whether the absence of a medical report and a Section 164 statement of the alleged victim affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 366, 376, 379
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- rape
- robbery
- criminal conspiracy
- false implication
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76819 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2012 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Ranjan Paswan S/o Ram Kishore Paswan R/o Village- Kelhriya, P.S- Dumra,
Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376, 379, 120(B) of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the
petitioner along with other co-accused persons kidnapped the
informant, took her to Delhi, established forceful physical
relationship and one day she heard that she was going to be
sold at Mumbai for rupees three lakh but any how she escaped
and came to the parent’s house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case
and as a matter of fact, the victim is a major lady having two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76819 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
2/3
children and after her alleged kidnapping neither the husband
nor anyone else lodged any case. The present case arises out of
a complaint filed by the victim herself i.e. after almost two
months of the date of occurrence and the said complaint was
sent for institution of F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C..
Learned counsel has further submitted that paragraph nos.6 and
7 of the case diary contains the statement of the father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the victim which is indicative of the fact
that the victim had conveyed to them in the month of January
itself that she was going to her mother’s house and she has
never returned. Further, paragraph-28 of the case diary contains
the statement of another independent witness, whose statement
indicates that the informant/victim eloped in January with one
Kanjarwala Nat. Further, neither any medical report nor
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim is on
record. Similarly situated co-accused person, namely Pankaj
Sharma has already been granted the privilege of bail by a
Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2015 passed in Cr.
Misc. No.41757 of 2014. The petitioner was working outside
the State of Bihar and after having knowledge of the present
case he surrendered on 30.06.2025 and charges have been
framed on 29.08.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76819 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
3/3
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail on
the basis of allegations made in the First Information Report.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the materials that have
transpired during the course of investigation, coupled with the
fact that charges have already been framed, let the above
named petitioner, who has no criminal antecedent and
undertakes to appear on each and every date fixed in the case,
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional
Session Judge-IV-cum-Special Judge (Rape and POCSO) Act,
Sitamarhi/concerned Court below in connection with Dumra
P.S. Case No. 237 of 2012 subject to condition that:-
(i) The petitioner shall remain physically present
in court on each and every date during trial and in
the event of failure on two consecutive dates
without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be
liable to be cancelled by the learned court
concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…