Patna High Court
Arvind PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the CCTV evidence placed the petitioners at the scene and the injuries were deemed grievous, indicating a prima facie case.
Summary
The petitioners, Rahul Kumar and his father Arvind Prasad, sought anticipatory bail in two related criminal miscellaneous applications concerning offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 308(4) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. They alleged that the FIR was false, claiming they were political workers who were framed by an informant seeking to coerce his mother‑in‑law. The State opposed the bail, relying on the seriousness of the injuries, the presence of the petitioners in CCTV footage at the scene, and the alleged extortion and assault. The Court examined the CCTV evidence, found it showed the petitioners at the place of occurrence, and considered the grievous nature of the injuries to a vital part of the body. Consequently, the Court held that the circumstances did not merit the privilege of anticipatory bail. Both applications for anticipatory bail were therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the existence of CCTV footage showing their presence at the alleged scene of assault
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a false implication or a genuine criminal offence warranting denial of bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 308(4), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- CCTV evidence
- grievous injury
- political extortion
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80600 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-377 Year-2025 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Son of Arvind Prasad Resident of Village - Adalchak, P.S. -
Tharthari, Dist. - Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79931 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-377 Year-2025 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Arvind Prasad S/o- Late Ramchandra Gope R/v- Adalchak Ps- Tharthari Dist-
Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 80600 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramji Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79931 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramji Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 12-03-2026 Criminal Miscellaneous No.80600 of 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
109(1), 308(4) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80600 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
2/6
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he is a political worker of a political party and had
come to the party office. It is next allege that after few hours,
Rahul Kumar (petitioner) along with four named accused
persons and five unknown accused came and demanded
extortion of Rs.10 lakhs and on refusal, the accused persons
took him to a lonely place and Arvind Prasad with rod and
Rahul Kumar with butt of pistol assaulted causing injury.
Further, when he fell, all accused assaulted him by rod causing
injury on head and fled thinking that informant is dead.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that he is a political worker and had come to
the office of the political party where the accused persons
including the petitioner came and demanded extortion of Rs.10
lakhs and on refusal they forcibly took him to a lonely place and
thereafter assaulted. It is next submitted that it does not appear
probable that petitioner along with other accused persons would
have entered office of a political party and thereafter would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80600 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
3/6
have demanded extortion of Rs.10 lakhs from the informant and
on refusal would have forcibly taken him to a lonely place and
assaulted. It is also submitted that every office of a political
party is buzzing with people, as such, the allegations do not
inspire confidence. It is next submitted that a supplementary
affidavit has been filed and Bihar P.S. Case No.280 of 2022,
dated 21.04.2022 has been annexed by way of Annexure-P/2.
The said FIR was instituted by Malti Devi, the mother-in-law of
Rahul Kumar alleging that the instant informant had kidnapped
her minor daughter. It is next submitted that in order to coerce
the mother-in-law and father-in-law into submission, the instant
false case came to be instituted alleging that this petitioner along
with his father Arvind Prasad were involved in the occurrence of
committing assault. It is next submitted that no doubt the injury
suffered by the informant has been opined to be grievous but
then from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, as
submitted, does not inspire confidence and the informant also
alleges that Arvind Prasad and Rahul Kumar assaulted him by
rod and butt of pistol and thereafter he fell and thereafter other
accused also assaulted him.
5. Learned APP vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application by submitting that the injured has suffered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80600 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
4/6
multiple injuries and the injuries are on vital part of the body,
i.e., head and have been opined to be grievous in nature. It is
also submitted that he has gone through the case diary and from
perusal of para-57 of the case dairy, it would manifest that same
records in detail about the occurrence based on CCTV footage.
The learned APP fairly submits that though in the FIR, it
appears that an exaggerated allegation of demanding ransom is
alleged but then from perusal of the CCTV footage, as recorded
in the case diary, it manifests that petitioner along with Saurabh
and others were present at the place of occurrence and had made
the informant sit in a car and thereafter they went away and on
the way, Arvind Prasad also met along with two other accused.
It is next submitted that there may not be an eye-witness to the
occurrence of assault but then the CCTV footage clearly
captures the footage showing that this petitioner was present at
the place of occurrence and subsequently on the way, Arvind
Prasad, who is father of the instant petitioner, also met and
thereafter the occurrence was committed. It is also submitted
that criminal cases cut both ways. It is next submitted that it
might be a possibility that since sister-in-law of Rahul Kumar
was kidnapped by the informant, as such, the occurrence of
assault was committed leading to grievous injury.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80600 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
5/6
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the fact that CCTV footage captures
the picture of petitioner along with other accused including
Arvind Prasad, who is father of the instant petitioner, the Court
is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Laheri
P.S. Case No.377 of 2025, pending in the court of learned
C.J.M., Biharsharif.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.79931 of 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
109(1), 308(4) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and is father of Rahul
Kumar (petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.80600 of 2025)
4. At this stage, the learned APP submits that son of
the petitioner, namely, Rahul Kumar had approached this Court
seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous
No.80600 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80600 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
6/6
dated 12.03.2026. It is further submitted that case of the
petitioner, if not akin, is similar to the case of Rahul Kumar. It is
also submitted that informant sustained grievous injuries on
vital part of the body.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a
position to rebut the submission of the learned APP.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the order dated 12.03.2026 passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.80600 of 2025, the Court is not
inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Laheri
P.S. Case No.377 of 2025, pending in the court of learned
C.J.M., Biharsharif.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…