Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5091/2026rejected

Abhinav Kumar @ Gaurav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-17Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5091 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-354 Year-2025 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== ABHINAV KUMAR @ GAURAV S/o Bindu Sharma R/o vill - Darihat, P.S.- Darihat, Distt.- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Obra P.S Case No. 354 of 2025 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 96 of BNS.

3. As per prosecution case, petitioner along with coaccused have kidnapped the sister of the informant for sake of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5091 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026 2/2

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order and case diary, it appears that victim is minor at the time of occurrence as per her mark sheet. As per the statement of the victim girl, she has stated that since 6 months the petitioner was pressurizing her to marry and she was asked to come to Daudnagar on 13.01.2025 where mobile, money and duplicate Aadhar Card was provided to her at his instruction and then she went to Mumbai and where she was kept in a lodge by two ladies, who were known to the petitioner and also stated that she was in regular contact with the petitioner and acted as per his direction due to fear.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T