Patna High Court
Nitish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Nitish Kumar and Niraj Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under IPC sections 341, 323, 307, 354, 504 and 34. The prosecution alleged that unknown persons had kidnapped the daughter of an informant, and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. named the petitioners as participants in the abduction. The petitioners contended they were not named in the FIR, have clean antecedents, and were falsely implicated due to village politics. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the victim’s recorded statement and the seriousness of the offences. After considering the gravity of the alleged crimes and the victim’s testimony, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the seriousness of the offences alleged.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 354, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- IPC
- CrPC
- Section 164
- false implication
- political victimisation
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7806 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2024 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Nitish Kumar S/O Rasiklal Yadav R/O Village- Kisnipatti, P.S.- Phulparas,
District- Madhubani
2. Niraj Kumar @ Neeraj Kumar S/O Pramod Kumar Yadav R/O Village-
Ward no. 6, Kisnipatti, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323,
307, 354, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that some
unknown persons kidnapped the daughter of informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. Petitioners are not named in the
F.I.R. and have falsely been implicated in this case due to
village politics. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7806 of 2026(2) dt.20-02-2026
2/2
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that during investigation, the
victim was recovered and in her statement recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she has named these petitioners and
has categorically stated that they were involved in her
abduction.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, gravity of offence and statement of the victim recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…