Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Raushan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court denied bail, holding that the allegations and victim's statement warranted the continuation of custody.

Summary

Petitioner Raushan Kumar applied for regular bail under section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in a case where the informant alleged that he attempted to kidnap her minor daughter. The prosecution presented the FIR and the victim's statement recorded under section 183 of the B.N.S.S. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated due to a prior dispute and highlighted his lack of criminal antecedents. The court examined the allegations and the victim's statement and found them sufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, but the petitioner was permitted to file a fresh bail prayer after four months or after the charge is framed, whichever is later.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged attempted kidnapping and the victim's statement under section 183.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • attempted kidnapping
  • false implication
  • victim statement
  • criminal procedure
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89986 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2025 Thana- NIMACHANDPURA District- Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Raushan Kumar Son of Raj Kishore Sahni @ Raj Kishor Sahni R/O Village-
                 Ajhaur, P.S.- Nima Chandpura, Distt.- Begusarai
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.    x x.
                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State          :        Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
                 For the Informant      :        Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   19-03-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                 2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Nimachandpura P.S.

                   Case no. 95 of 2025 registered under section 96 of the Bharatiya

                   Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                 3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that the petitioner and one another accused on a motorcycle

                   made an attempt to kidnap her minor daughter but as a result of

                   the intervention of the co-villagers, while the petitioner was

                   caught the other accused persons managed to escape.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of previous

                   dispute between the parties. Reference is made to the earlier
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89986 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
                                                       2/2




                     complaint filed by the mother of the petitioner, details of which has

                     been given in paragraph no. 13 of the petition. The petitioner is in

                     custody since 1.9.2025 and has no criminal antecedent. Chargesheet

                     has been submitted in the case.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned

                     counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner besides

                     being named in the FIR, there is allegation of his attempting to

                     having kidnap the minor daughter of the informant which has

                     also been supported by the victim in her statement under section

                     183 of the B.N.S.S.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR together with

                     the contents of the statement of the victim recorded under

                     section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the

                     petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

                                  7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his

                     prayer for bail after four months or on framing of charge,

                     whichever is later.



                                                 (Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.