Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Rohit Kumar was arrested in connection with a kidnapping case (PS Bajpatti Case No. 103 of 2025) alleged under Sections 87, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The prosecution claimed that the minor daughter of an informant was abducted by Rahul Kumar and his family, and that Rohit Kumar was later implicated by a co‑villager’s statement recorded in the investigation diary. The petitioner contended that his name does not appear in the FIR, that he was falsely implicated at a belated stage, and that he has no criminal antecedents, having been in judicial custody since 30‑10‑2025. The court noted that the victim had not yet been recovered, the police had not recorded the victim’s statement, and the petitioner’s involvement was disclosed only late and not by any family member. Considering the lack of substantive evidence, the delayed addition of the petitioner’s name, and the petitioner’s personal circumstances, the court decided to enlarge him on bail. He was ordered to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pupari, Sitamarhi.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the kidnapping allegations.
- Whether the late addition of the petitioner’s name to the investigation diary affects his eligibility for bail.
- Whether the absence of the victim’s statement and recovery impacts the decision on bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 3(5), 351(2), 352, 87
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- criminal procedure
- investigation
- victim recovery
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87177 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- BAJPATTI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Rohit Kumar S/o Dinesh Das R/o Village- Pupari, P.S- Pupari, Dist-
Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Saumya Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Suman Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard Ms. Saumya Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 103 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 87, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of
the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the
minor daughter of the informant has gone to school and when
she did not return for a considerable time, she was being
searched. The informant came to know that Rahul Kumar, along
with his family members, have kidnapped the minor daughter of
the informant, and she was taken on a four-wheeler.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87177 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. He also submits that the name of this petitioner is not there
in the FIR. His name surfaced during the course of investigation
in para-152 of the case diary, wherein one witness namely,
Kishori Das, has stated that the petitioner was also involved in
kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant. He also
submits that suddenly on 07.10.2025, the name of this petitioner
surfaced during the investigation, not on the statement of any
family member of the victim but rather on the statement of co-
villager. He further submits that a statement has been made in
para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Petitioner is a student and has been languishing in judicial
custody since 30.10.2025.
5. From perusal of the entire file, it appears that in this
case, the victim has not yet been recovered. During the course
of the hearing, this Court was informed that the victim is
residing with co-accused namely, Rahul. As the statement of the
victim was not recorded, the Superintendent of Police,
Sitamarhi, was directed to take steps for recording the statement
of the victim and recovering her.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, has filed a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87177 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
detailed report in which he has only concise the case diary and
has made a index of the diary, which is of no avail. From his
entire report, it does not appear as to what steps have been taken
for recovering the victim; rather, it suggests that he is only
following the work already done by the Investigating Officer
(I.O.). It seems that the I.O. and the S.P., Sitamarhi, are
unknown to the facts and gravity of the case i.e., why they have
not taken any steps for recovering the victim. Both have made
an attempt to pat their back themselves. It seems that both of
them need proper training.
7. In any view of the matter, the role of this petitioner
was disclosed only at a belated stage and that too not by any
family member of the victim but by a co-villager.
8. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Pupari, Sitamarhi in connection with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87177 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 103 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…