Dismissed

Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Apr 2026CR. MISC./11825/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge heard a plea for anticipatory bail under Sections 420, 364A, and 120B IPC regarding a Nepali national's confinement and ransom demand. The court rejected the plea due to the prima facie case and allegations of active complicity, deny. fet, and role in the conspiracy.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Dumara P.S. Case No. 614 of 2023 is rejected.

Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11825 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-614 Year-2023 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh Son of Late Arun Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Chimanpur, Police Station - Sheohar, District - Sheohar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 27-04-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dumara P.S. Case No.614 of 2023 instituted under Sections 420, 364A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per the prosecution case, the informant, a resident of Nepal, alongwith his friends, was allegedly called to India by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. Upon reaching, they were taken to different places and introduced to several unknown persons. Subsequently, the petitioner allegedly fled away with the motorcycle of the informant i.e. Pulsar 220 bearing Registration No. 63P-1844. Thereafter, the informant and his friends were allegedly confined by other co-accused persons and a ransom of Rs.6 lacs was demanded for their

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11825 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026 2/4

¶17

release and return of the aforementioned motorcycle.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motives. He further submits that from a plain perusal of the F.I.R., no specific overt act is alleged constituting offence under Section 364A of the IPC. Learned counsel submits that the call demanding ransom was made by an unknown person and no case is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that the motorcycle of the informant was taken by the petitioner in good faith. He further submits that petitioner has one criminal antecedent and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial of the case.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and he has played a pivotal role in commission of the offence by luring the informant and his companion from Nepal to India on false pretext which forms the foundation of the entire occurrence. He further submits that the victim specifically admitted that the petitioner himself has called from his phone to his friends and family for ransom and further he had assaulted him. Learned A.P.P. submits that the motorcycle of the informant was

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11825 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026 3/4

¶21

recovered from the back portion of the house of the petitioner. He further submits that the materials available on records disclose a prima facie case of well planned conspiracy wherein the petitioner acted in concert with the other co-accused persons ultimately resulting in wrongful confinement and demand of ransom, thereby attracting the rigors of section 364A of the IPC. Learned A.P.P. submits that the conduct of the petitioner in fleeing away with the motorcycle of the informant further strengthens the prosecution’s case and it indicates his active complicity.

¶22

From perusal of case diary, it appears that there is ample material against the petitioner which support the prosecution case. The allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and prima facie case being made out against the petitioner by facilitating the circumstances which culminated into the alleged confinement and demand of ransom. The victim specifically named the petitioner who made call for ransom.

¶23

Considering the gravity of the offences, nature of accusation and role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected in connection with Dumara P.S. Case No.614 of 2023.

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11825 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026 4/4

¶25

The application stands rejected.

¶26

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)

¶27

Ritik/-

¶28

U T

Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Nesh India Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs Savita Sah

Lalita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Pandit Vs The State of Bihar

Yadu Singh @ Yadunandan Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Mazahar Alam and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Janardan Dubey @ Janardhan Dubey and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.