Dileep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21186 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-270 Year-2025 Thana- MAHNAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

Dileep Kumar Son of Rajendra Rai Resident of Village - Vishanpur Bande, P.S. - Patrori, Dist. - Samastipur.

2.

Manoranjan Kumar Son of Chandeshwar Rai Resident of Village - Vishanpur Bande, P.S. - Patrori, Dist. - Samastipur. 3.

Chandeshwar Rai Son of Yogendra Rai Resident of Village - Vishanpur Bande, P.S. - Patrori, Dist. - Samastipur.

4.

Anshu Kumar Son of Chandeshwar Rai Resident of Village - Vishanpur Bande, P.S. - Patrori, Dist. - Samastipur.

5.

Ravikant Rai Son of Ram Vinod Rai Resident of Village - Vishanpur Bande, P.S. - Patrori, Dist. - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raju Kumar, Adv.

Mr.Shubham Samrat, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Mahnar P.S. Case No.270 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, which is pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against four named and two unknown accused persons including

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21186 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026 2/2 the petitioners with allegation that they had kidnapped the informant's son and solemnized marriage forcefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that earlier an FIR has been lodged under Section 498(A) of the IPC and thereafter, the present case has been lodged. He further submits that only with a view to save his skin, the informant has lodged the present case.

5. Counsel also submits that antecedent of the petitioners is clean.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that upon perusal of the record, it transpires that kidnapping has taken place firstly, then marriage was solemnized and then lodged a case under section 498A of the IPC.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, therefore the bail application of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Prakashmani/- U T