Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22474 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2025 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar S/O Din Bandhu Singh R/O Village- Shahpur (Gandhi Setu Pillar No. 1) (Kranpura Sherpur), P.S- Ganga Bridge, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(1-2) and 87 of the BNS, 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her daughter had gone to purchase article from a shop, but did not return, on search it transpired that petitioner along with other accused persons kidnapped her daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is next submitted that petitioner and victim were in love and they eloped, but then victim has been recovered and she did not support the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, but then in her statement

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22474 of 2026(2) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 recorded under Section 183 BNSS she supported the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the victim is a minor. It is also submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that she was taken by the petitioner and he locked her in a room and when he came to know that the instant case has been instituted, he left her and fled. The learned APP next submits that since victim has supported the case of the prosecution that amply demonstrates that petitioner forcefully kidnapped her.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T