Vikram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Informant : None For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶14

5 20-02-2026

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Alauli Police Station Case No. 94 of 2025, disclosing offences under Sections 96, 137(2), 126(2), 115(2), 74, 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sahnita.

¶17

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 03.03.2025, while the informant’s granddaughter had gone out to attend nature’s call, she was allegedly kidnapped by the petitioner and Rahul Kumar with the intention to marry.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61532 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026 2/3

¶20

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. The petitioner resides near the house of the victim. The victim girl was recovered from the house of one Suraj Kumar on 16.03.2025 and her statement was recorded by the Police under Section 180 BNSS. In her statement before the Police, the victim girl stated that she had voluntarily gone with Suraj Kumar and married him on 12.03.2025, and was living with him in his house at the time of her recovery on 16.03.2025. The statement of the victim girl was subsequently recorded under Section 183 BNSS, in which she retracted from her earlier statement and alleged that she went with Suraj Kumar at the behest of the petitioner

¶21

5. No-one appears for the O.P. No. 2.

¶22

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that from the investigation report, it appears that the victim has given two different versions. Initially, before the police, the victim stated that she voluntarily went with Suraj Kumar. However, in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she stated that she did not go with Suraj Kumar voluntarily, but that the petitioner was instrumental in bringing her along.

¶23

7. Regards being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61532 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026 3/3

¶25

contradictory statements have been made by the victim before the Police as well as before the learned Magistrate, I am inclined

¶26

to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶27

8. This application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶28

9. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, in connection with Alauli Police Station Case No. 94 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶30

Siwani/-

Vikram Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupchandra Bharti Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Prasun Vs The State of Bihar

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar Vs Urmila Devi

Vevek Anand @ Veveka Nand Pandit@ Vivek Anand Vs The State of Bihar

Kumar Aashish Vs The State of Bihar

Brahm Deo Sah Vs The State of Bihar