Patna High Court
Govind KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Govind Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Indian Penal Code alleging kidnapping and abduction of the informant's daughter. He claimed a clean record, asserted that the victim voluntarily eloped, and alleged false implication by the informant. The State opposed the bail, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the CrPC, which supported the prosecution’s version that the petitioner had previously abducted the daughter. The court examined the statements and the seriousness of the alleged offences. Finding the victim’s testimony credible and the allegations serious, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioner’s bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case of alleged kidnapping and abduction under Sections 137(2) and 87 IPC.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 CrPC negates the petitioner’s claim of voluntary elopement and false implication.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 87
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- abduction
- IPC
- CrPC
- victim statement
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9775 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-936 Year-2025 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Govind Kumar Son of Pawan Sah Resident of Village- Singhaula, P.S.-
Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Alok
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Ahiyapur P. S. Case No.936 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that petitioner came to his house on
06.07.2025 and requested him to allow to sleep in the house.
The petitioner was allowed to sleep in the house as he was
neighbour of informant’s brother, but in the night he fled with
informant’s daughter leaving his motorcycle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9775 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
informant. It is next submitted that victim is a married lady. It is
also submitted that they were known to each other and it was at
the call of the victim that the petitioner stayed back in the house
in the night and thereafter victim on her own volition eloped.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application and submits that informant specifically alleges
that on 06.07.2025, the petitioner came to his house and
requested him to allow him to sleep in the house, since
petitioner was neighbour of the brother of the informant, hence
the informant trusting the petitioner allowed to sleep in his
house, but then he committed the said act of abducting the
daughter of the informant. The learned A.P.P. further submits
that the case was taken up on 30.03.2026 and the statement of
the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS was called for. The
learned A.P.P. further after perusing the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 BNSS submits that victim has
supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that
petitioner about two months back had come to her house in the
night and had committed wrong and thereafter he again came
back and took her out of the house and left her at the station
where his sister came and picked up her. The learned A.P.P. thus
submits that victim is not supporting the petitioner in any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9775 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
manner and the investigation of the case is continuing.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that from perusal of the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it
would manifest that the victim though has supported the case of
the prosecution but then has not stated about the present
occurrence rather has stated that about two months back the
petitioner comitted wrong on which the learned A.P.P. submits
that specific allegation is alleged in the FIR that on 06.07.2025,
the petitioner came to his house and requested him to allow him
to sleep and later he abducted his daughter leaving behind his
motorcycle which amply demonstrates that the presence of the
petitioner in the house of the informant.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…