Patna High Court
Ram Pratap Mahto @ Ram Pratap SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to bond and surety conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioners, Ram Pratap Mahto and his wife Shila, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a kidnapping case (PS Rahika Case No. 98/2025) under sections 351(2), 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the BNS. They argued that the alleged kidnapping involved their son, not them, and that the FIR was lodged six days after the alleged incident without explanation, indicating no substantive basis. The State opposed the bail. Considering the nature of the allegations, the six‑day delay in filing the FIR, and the petitioners’ lack of involvement, the court inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The court ordered that, if arrested within six weeks, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a Rs. 20,000 bond each with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order was pronounced by Justice Shailendra Singh.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the allegations under sections 351(2), 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the BNS
- Whether the six‑day delay in lodging the FIR justifies granting anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR delay
- kidnapping allegation
- Section 482(2)
- bail bond
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8914 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Ram Pratap Mahto @ Ram Pratap Singh S/o- Late Domu Mahto Village-
Malangia PS-Rahika District- Madhubani
2. Shila @ Shailo Devi W/o- Ram Pratap Mahto Village- Malangia PS-Rahika
District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gagandeo Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Sharda Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Rahika P.S. Case No. 98/ 2025 registered for the offence(s)
punishable under Section(s) 351(2), 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the
BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
main allegation of kidnapping of the informant’s daughter is
against the son of the petitioners and the petitioners had no role
in the alleged occurrence, in fact, no occurrence as alleged in
the FIR took place and earlier also the informant’s daughter had
fled away with someone and the FIR was lodged by the
informant after six days of the alleged occurrence without
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8914 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
giving any explanation for the delay.
4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed
the bail prayer of the petitioners.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case as well
as considering the above-stated facts and the nature of the
allegations appearing against the petitioners coupled with the
delay of six days in lodging the FIR, this court is inclined to
grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, let the petitioners named-above, in the event of
their arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 98/ 2025 on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
BKS/-
U T
Checking your session…