Patna High Court

Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Thakur @ Niraj ThakurversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 19 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PARTHA SARTHY

Holding

The Court held that bail could not be granted at this stage.

Summary

Neeraj Kumar was arrested in connection with a kidnapping case (IPC sections 363, 366A, 34) after a 13‑year‑old girl was reported missing and later claimed she was kidnapped by the petitioner. The petitioner argued he was falsely implicated, citing a delayed FIR, lack of mobile phone in the examination centre, and his clean record. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC supported the kidnapping allegation. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s testimony. The Court, after hearing both sides, refused regular bail, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months or after charge framing.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused in a kidnapping case where the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC supports the allegation.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the alleged absence of a mobile phone affect the bail decision.
Applicability of IPC sections 363, 366A and 34 in the bail context.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A

Subjects

kidnapping
regular bail
IPC
CrPC
minor victim
statement under Section 164
delay in FIR

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90679 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2024 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Thakur @ Niraj Thakur S/o- Shri Bhagwan Thakur
                 R/O- Village- Harnahiyan, P.S- Purhania, District- Sheohar

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Navin Kumar S/o- Late Ramsharnagat Singh R/v- Gaighat W.No-1, PS-
                 Rumni Saidpur District- Sitamarhi

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   19-03-2026                       1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                    2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case

                   no.177 of 2024 registered under sections 363, 366A and 34 of

                   the Indian Penal Code.

                                    3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that his 13 year old daughter who had gone to give examination

                   did not return and was not to be found inspite of search.

                   Thereafter the informant received a phone call from the mobile

                   number given in the FIR from the petitioner that his daughter

                   has been kidnapped.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90679 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No such

          occurrence as alleged has taken place. It is submitted that the

          informant states that his daughter had gone to appear in the

          examination with a mobile phone which is incorrect as no

          mobile phone was permitted in the examination centres. There is

          a delay in lodging of the FIR. The daughter of the informant

          returned and her statement was recorded under section 164

          Cr.P.C. The petitioner is in custody since 16.9.2025 and has no

          criminal antecedent. Chargesheet has been submitted in the

          case.

                      5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.

          for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned

          counsel for the informant submits that the daughter of the

          informant returned and in her statement under section 164

          Cr.P.C., her age has been assessed to be 14 years. She has

          supported the allegation of kidnapping against the petitioner. It

          is not disputed that there is no allegation of sexual offence

          against the victim.

                       6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

          taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in

          the FIR and the contents of the statement recorded under section

          164 Cr.P.C. wherein the victim has supported the allegation of
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90679 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
                                                        3/3




                      kidnapping against the petitioner, 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 six months or on framing of charge,

                      whichever is later.



                                                  (Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…