Amit Kumar Ranjan @ Amit Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Amit Kumar Ranjan @ Amit Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted - petitioner to be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks from receipt of the order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jehanabad, in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 704 of 2025, subject to five conditions: (i) one bailor to be a family member/relative producing official identity document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card); (ii) appearance before the Police Station as and when required for cooperating in investigation; (iii) appearance on each and every Trial Court date, failure on two consecutive dates without plausible reason entailing cancellation of bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iv) no inducement/promise/threat to witnesses or tampering with evidence; (v) desistance from committing any criminal offence again - breaches of (iv)/(v) permitting the State to seek cancellation of the bail bonds.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 704 of 2025 registered under Sections 96 and 137(2) of the B.N.S., is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

The petitioner and the victim girl, both being adult, solemnized marriage on 07.11.2025 and the victim girl is presently living with her husband happily.

Ratio / Principle

The informant's husband Shiv Shankar Das himself came forward and ensured that the couple have a happy marital journey.

Key takeaways

Learned APP opposed the prayer but conceded that the parties are adult, had solemnized marriage and it is accepted by both family members.ratio¶21
Taking into account the facts on record, including that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is a young person of 26 years, the Court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.ratio¶22
Anticipatory bail extended: petitioner to be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks of receipt of the order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jehanabad, in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 704 of 2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J.; order dated 08-04-2026) allowed anticipatory bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20765 of 2026 arising from Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 704 of 2025, Jehanabad, registered for offences under Sections 96 and 137(2) of the B.N.S. on an FIR dated 04.09.2025 by informant Pushpa Devi alleging that her daughter, a teacher in a private school, went to the place but did not return. The petitioner, Amit Kumar Ranjan @ Amit Ranjan (26 years, no criminal antecedent), was said to have had a relationship with the victim girl; both being adults they solemnized marriage on 07.11.2025 and she is presently living with her husband happily; the marriage was accepted by both family members (learned APP conceding this despite opposing the prayer), and the informant's husband Shiv Shankar Das came forward ensuring the couple's happy marital journey, the petition affidavit bearing his stamp. Direction: release on bail on arrest or surrender within four weeks on bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jehanabad, subject to conditions - one bailor to be a family member/relative with official photo-identity (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card); Police Station appearance as and when required for investigation; appearance on every Trial Court date with cancellation of bail bond by the Trial Court itself for two consecutive absences without plausible reason; no inducement/promise/threat to witnesses or tampering with evidence; and desistance from fresh offences, breaches entitling the State to seek cancellation of bail bonds.