Patna High Court

Lakhan YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioners.

Summary

The petitioners, Lakhan Yadav, Bishokha Devi and Jhuma Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 140(1), 89, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleges that Rajesh Yadav, with the help of co‑accused, deceived the informant's sister, forced an abortion and kidnapped her, after which she went missing. The petitioners contend they have no specific role in the kidnapping and maintain clean antecedents. The State and the informant’s counsel argue that the petitioners are named in the FIR with a specific accusation of assisting in the kidnapping. The court examined the gravity of the offence, the specific nature of the accusation and the fact that the victim remains missing, and consequently rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the alleged offences under Sections 140(1), 89, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 140(1), 3(5), 61(2), 89

Subjects

anticipatory bail
kidnapping
false promise of marriage
criminal procedure
B.N.S. sections
Bihar

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84492 of 2025

                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
           1.    Lakhan Yadav S/o Bujay Yadav R/o Village - Kushaha, P.S.- Azamnagar,
                 District - Katihar
           2.    Bishokha Devi W/o Rajesh Yadav R/o Village - Kushaha, P.S.- Azamnagar,
                 District - Katihar
           3.    Jhuma Devi W/o Sanjeev Yadav R/o Village - Dhabol, P.S.- Azamnagar,
                 District - Katihar

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Bhim Yadav S/o Late Aman Lal Yadav R/o Village - Adampur, P.S.-
                 Balrampur, District - Katihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioners     :        Mr. Pravin Chandra Prasad, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Najeeb Ahmad, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Thakur Brajesh Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and

                   learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 140(1), 89,

                   61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

                                3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the widowed

                   sister of informant was deceived into a relationship by co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84492 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
                                            2/3




          accused Rajesh Yadav under false promise of marriage. It is

          alleged that with the help of all other F.I.R. named accused

          persons, including these petitioners, co-accused Rajesh Yadav

          forced abortion of sister of informant and later on, refused to

          solemnize marriage. It is further alleged that on 06.06.2025, co-

          accused Rajesh Yadav took away sister of informant from the

          house after which, she went missing.

                       4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and

          have committed no offence. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is

          apparent that specific accusation of kidnapping is against co-

          accused Rajesh Yadav. No specific role has been attributed

          against these petitioners. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

                       5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and

          learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the

          prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and

          submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific

          accusation that they helped co-accused Rajesh Yadav in

          kidnapping the victim, who is still traceless.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence

          and the fact that the victim is still traceless, the prayer for grant
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84492 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
                                                         3/3




                       of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…