Vijay Sah @ Vijo Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20388 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2026 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.
Vijay Sah @ Vijo Sah S/o Late Banarsi Sah 2.
Manjeet Kumar @ Manjit Kumar S/o Vijay Sah @ Vijo Sah 3.
Meena Devi @ Mina Devi W/o Vijay Sah @ Vijo Sah 4.
Shivani Kumari D/o Vijay Sah @ Vijo Sah All are Resident of - Kulhariya, Ward No. 1, P.S - Parbatta, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Renuka Ratnakar (App 125) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Renuka Ratnakar learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 11 of 2026 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 96,3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, one Aditya Kumar, son of petitioner no.1 had kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners no.1 and 3 are father
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20388 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/3 and mother respectively, whereas petitioners no.2 and 4 are brother and sister of said co-accused Aditya Kumar. Learned counsel further submitted that co-accused Aditya Kumar and daughter of the informant were in love relationship and the petitioners have no role in the alleged kidnapping of the minor daughter of the informant. Learned counsel further contends that no case under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the BNS is made out against the petitioners, particularly in view of the specific allegations being made against the co-accused Aditya Kumar, who is also stated to be a minor. Petitioners have clean antecedents.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, this Court directs the learned District Court to call for and examine the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, and to ascertain whether any specific allegation has been made against the petitioners. In the event, the victim has levelled specific allegations against any of the petitioners, the prayer for anticipatory bail of such petitioner(s) shall be rejected. However, insofar as the petitioner(s) against whom no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20388 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 3/3 allegation has been made in the said statement, they shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
7. The impugned order of the learned District Court is modified to the above extent for passing a fresh order.
8. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U T