Patna High Court
Rohan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application.
Summary
The petitioners, including Rohan Kumar and others, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., alleging that they were falsely implicated in the alleged kidnapping and abuse of a 17‑year‑old girl. The informant claimed the petitioners enticed the minor to Kolkata, but the victim later recorded a statement under Section 183 B.N.S. stating she was not kidnapped and had gone to her sister’s house of her own accord. The victim’s parents also denied the truthfulness of her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183. The petitioners argued they have clean antecedents and that the allegations are baseless. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, noting the lack of victim support and the possibility of false implication, granted anticipatory bail subject to bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the victim’s statement does not support the prosecution and the parents deny its truthfulness.
- Whether the petitioners are likely to tamper with evidence or flee, justifying denial of bail.
- Whether the allegations, if true, constitute offences under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 3(5), 482(2), 96
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- victim statement
- kidnapping
- minor
- bail conditions
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9773 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2025 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Rohan Kumar Son of Shambhu Ram Resident of Village - Mataiya, Ps-
Vaishali, Dist- Vaishali
2. Punam Devi Wife of Shambhu Ram Resident of Village - Mataiya, Ps-
Vaishali, Dist- Vaishali
3. Rahul Kumar son of Shambhu Ram Resident of Village - Mataiya, Ps-
Vaishali, Dist- Vaishali
4. Usha Devi Wife of Sudhir Kumar Resident of Village - Dighi Kala West Ps-
Sadar Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali
5. Sudhir Kumar son of Baleshwar Ram Resident of Village - Dighi Kala West
Ps- Sadar Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali
6. Sita Devi Wfie of Manoj Ram Resident of Village -Padmaul, Ps- Kudhani,
Dist- Muzaffarpur
7. Manoj Ram Son of Late Luruk Ram Resident of Village -Padmaul, Ps-
Kudhani, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sarshwati Devi Wife of Surya Kant Ram Resident of Village - Mataiya, Ps-
Vaishali, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9773 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner
nos.2, 4 and 6 are women and the informant alleges that her
neighbour and his relative including the petitioners enticed her
minor daughter aged about 17 years and took her to Kolkata at
their aunt’s house. Further, she went to the house of Rohan
Kumar to enquire, when she was abused, thus alleges that
accused might commit the wrong with her daughter.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant being related to Rohan. It is also submitted that
victim came back and her statement was recorded under Section
183 BNSS and she has not supported the case of the prosecution
rather has stated that she was not kidnapped by anyone and she
was annoyed with her father and brother, thus she went to the
house of her sister namely Anu Kumari at Digha, Vaishali. It is
also submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is
true without admitting, then the victim had reached the age of
discretion and has also not supported the case of the
prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application and submits that from perusal of the order
impugned, it would manifest that though victim has not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9773 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded
under Section 183 BNSS, but then, parents of the victim have
denied the truthfulness of the statement given by the victim
under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS.
6. Since the victim has not supported the case of the
prosecution, as such, the petitioners, above-named, in the event
of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on
anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with
Vaishali P. S. Case No.471 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…