Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32679 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-433 Year-2024 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Manish Kumar son of Kailash Yadav Rersident of Village -Gosaidaspur Police Station- Nathnagar, Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

X son of Late Bhola Mahto Resident of Village -Gosaidaspur Police StationNathnagar, Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS, 2023') for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Nath Nagar P.S. Case No. 433 of 2024, lodged on 20.12.2024, under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution, the F.I.R has been lodged against six named accused persons including the present petitioner against whom allegation of kidnapping the daughter

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32679 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 2/2 of the informant is alleged.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that from perusal of First Information Report, it appears that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and only on the basis of suspicion the informant had disclosed the name of the petitioner. He submits that victim girl has recovered from her Mausi's house not from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that the victim went voluntarily with the petitioner and others. Counsel submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that in the order of Sessions Court it has been found that the victim in her statement under Sections 180 and 183 deposed against the petitioner.

6. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby refused.

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