Patna High Court
Upendra Singh @ Upendra Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding no specific allegation against him and noting his clean antecedent, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioner, Upendra Singh, sought bail fearing arrest in a case (C.R. No.1965 of 2022) alleging kidnapping and forced marriage under several IPC sections. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, abducted the complainant’s son and forced his marriage to Rinkki Kumari. The petitioner contended he has a clean record, is the maternal uncle of the complainant’s son, and was falsely implicated, noting that the son had already married Rinkki Kumari and that co‑accused had been granted anticipatory bail. The court observed that no specific allegation was made against the petitioner and, consistent with the bail granted to co‑accused, ordered his release on bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bail bond was set at Rs.10,000 with two sureties and several compliance conditions were imposed.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to the petitioner?
- Whether the petitioner can be released on bail despite the serious IPC charges alleged against him?
- Whether the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner justifies granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 341, 342, 364, 365, 367
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- forced marriage
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88906 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1965 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
Upendra Singh @ Upendra Kumar Singh Son of Late Bhubaneshwar Singh @
Bhuttu Singh Resident of Village - Chandauli, P.S.- Waini, District -
Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ram Chandra Mahto Son of Late Bathu Mahto Resident of Village -
Chandopatti Rudauli, P.S.- Samastipur (Muffasil), District - Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with C.R.No. 1965 of 2022, dated 23.11.2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 364, 365, 367,
120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner
along with other co-accused persons kidnapped the
complainant’s son and forcibly performed marriage with co-
accused, namely, Rinkki Kumari.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88906 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. Infact the complainant’s son,
namely, Chhotu Kumar has performed the marriage with one
Rinkki Kumari and Rinkki Kumari has filed Mahila P.S. Case
No.89 of 2022 against him and the said Chotu Kumar has been
granted bail in the aforesaid case vide order dated 19.03.2024 in
Cr. Misc. No. 63537 of 2023 and the Hon’ble Court has fixed
Rs. 5000/- to be paid to Rinkki Kumari as interim compensation
and father of the said Chhotu Kumar has filed the present
complaint petition against the petitioner and his family
members. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Rinkki
Kumari and Mukesh Kumar have been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 17.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 65025 of 2025 arising
out of present complaint petition.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and he is
maternal uncle of the complainant’s son and has clean
antecedent and similarly situated co-accused have been granted
the privilege of anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88906 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
this Court , let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest
or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty
days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Samastipur in
connection with C.R.No. 1965 of 2022, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88906 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…