Patna High Court

Sachin KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Sachin Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case (PS Case No.71/2025) alleging his involvement in offences under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. He claimed to have a clean record and asserted that the informant had falsely implicated him, describing an incident where the victim was allegedly abducted but escaped. The State, through its A.P.P., relied on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, which corroborated the prosecution’s case, including medical evidence of injuries. The petitioner’s counsel was unable to rebut the victim’s testimony or the medical report. Considering the victim’s corroborated statement and the seriousness of the alleged offences, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS.
Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 75, 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 115(2), 126(2), 183, 303(2), 3(5), 74, 75

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
rape allegation
Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
Section 183 BNSS
criminal procedure
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.834 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Sachin Kumar S/o Shivjee Patel @ Shivji Ray Resident of Village-
                 Banshghat, Ward No 7, P.S.- Chakiya, District- East Champaran
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   27-04-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 75,

                   303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges

                   that his daugther was going to see a fair on 28.02.2025 at 09:00 p.m.

                   when four named accused persons including the petitioner

                   intercepted her and were forcefully trying to take her inside a

                   bamboo orchard with an intent to commit wrong but, on alarm,

                   shopkeepers gathered when Rahul snatched the mobile of the victim

                   and fled away.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

                   informant.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.834 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                                  5. At this stage, learned A.P.P. submits that Adarsh Kumar

                     had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr.

                     Misc. No. 42199 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an

                     order dated 09.07.2025 by this Court in view of the statement of the

                     victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS wherein she has supported

                     the case of the prosecution and has stated that she was raped and the

                     injury report also corroborates the allegation as the Doctor found

                     visible external injuries on the victim’s hymen as well as on other

                     parts of her body.

                                  6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                     is not in a position to rebut the said submissions of the learned A.P.P.

                     for the State.

                                  7. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                     A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege

                     of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Chakiya P.S.

                     Case No. 71 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial

                     Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari/Successor Court.

                                  8. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.


                                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…