Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10446 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-431 Year-2025 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Raushan Kumar S/O Ranjit Yadav R/O Vill.- Murali Methahi, Ward no. 9, P.S.- Nawhatta, Dist.- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 431 of 2025 dated 23.08.2025 registered under Section 126(2), 115(2), 140(1), 140(3), 303(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023.
3. As per the first information report on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. on 23.08.2025 the brother of the informant was kidnapped by the petitioner -Raushan Kumar, the co-accused Dilkhush Kumar, Rupesh Kumar and two unknown persons on the point of gun while he was coming to Supaul from Bakaur Bandh. The kidnappers took away the informant's brother in a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. BR19V5707.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10446 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. He next submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence rather the petitioner has been made accused on the basis of suspicion only. It is next submitted that the Scorpio vehicle in question does not belong to the petitioner rather it belongs to one Rakesh Kumar Roshan, son of Rajeshwar Mandal and the same has come in paragraph no. 42 of the case diary. He next submits that the informant has given an affidavit before the C.J.M. Supaul on 19.09.2025 that due to confusion he has lodged the case and now he does not want to proceed with the case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. Regard being had to the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T