Raushan Kumar Azad @ Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4599 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2025 Thana- ALAMNAGAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== Raushan Kumar Azad @ Raushan Kumar Son of Khusilal Mehta @ Khushil Mehta Resident of Village - Bhagipur, Ward No.- 05, P.S.- Alamnagar, District - Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bishweshwar Ram APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 282 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025, registered under Sections 140(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 07.09.2025 at about 7:00 PM, the informant's minor son was kidnapped while playing outside a house. The child could not be traced despite hectic search and on 08.09.2025 the informant's husband received a ransom call demanding Rs. 5 lakhs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the

2/4 present case. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, it was found that the mobile number 7485031091, from which the ransom call was made, stands registered in the name of co-accused Santosh Kumar. It is further submitted that upon analysis of the Call Detail Records (CDR) and Subscriber Detail Records (SDR) of mobile number 7485031091, it transpired that the said mobile number was operated using three different IMEI numbers, all registered in the name of the said Santosh Kumar and that mobile number 7762978039 was recently used in one of the handsets through which the ransom call was made, stands registered in the name of co-accused Lochan Kumar, who was thereafter arrested.

The said coaccused is stated to have confessed his guilt and in his confessional statement he implicated the petitioner as one of his associates claiming that he monitored developments after registration of the FIR. Further submission is that on the basis of confessional statement of Lochan Kumar, the victim boy was recovered from the house of co-accused Ramesh Mandal and his wife. It is submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the vehicle which was used in the commission of crime nor the place of recovery.

3/4 Lochan Kumar. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 09.09.2025 and has no criminal antecedents.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Udakishunganj, Dist. Madhepura in connection with Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 282 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-(i) that the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the court below, (ii) that one of the bailors will be his own blood relation, preferably father, mother, brother, sister and or his wife, (iii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is made accused in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be

4/4 at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of misuse and, (iv) that if the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Khatim Reza, J) shyambihari/- U T