Bambam Harijan @ Bambam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

apprehending his arrest in connection with Rajoun P.S. Case no.182 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, the informant states

¶17

that her natini (daughter’s daughter) was kidnapped by the accused persons including the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He had no information nor knowledge about the pendency of the instant application. Referring to the ordersheet brought on record, it is submitted that no process was issued against him. It is further submitted that the victim is a major. The petitioner has no

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27594 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026 2/3

¶20

criminal antecedent and as such he be enlarged on bail.

¶21

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR as one of the accused involved in the kidnapping of the granddaughter of the informant. The FIR was registered on 12.6.2016 and it is more than seven years later that the petitioner moved the learned Court below for anticipatory bail and further after rejection of the same in December 2023 he waited for another two years for moving this Court for anticipatory bail. Further referring to the order of the learned trial Court, learned APP submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has named the petitioner as being involved in abduction and that the petitioner kept her in her house where the victim also become pregnant.

¶22

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner being named in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation including the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. which finds mention in the order of the learned trial Court and specially in a case of the year 2016, the petitioner having moved for anticipatory bail in this Court in the year

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27594 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026 3/3

¶24

2026, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the same is rejected.

¶25

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶26

Saurabh/-

¶27

U T

Bambam Harijan @ Bambam Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bambam Harijan @ Bambam Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupa Kumari Vs The Union of India

Mariyam Hansda Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Radheshyam Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Anchal Kumari @ Anchal Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Dheeraj Paswan @ Dhiraj Kumar @ Dheeraj Vs The State of Bihar