← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33934/2026bail granted

Shree Krishna Singh @ Krishna Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-20Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33934 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2011 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Shree Krishna Singh @ Krishna Singh S/O Dina Singh Resident of VillageSikatia Pachahatar, Police Station- Jamo Bazar, Distt.- Siwan, Pin Code841416. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Uma Devi W/O Rajesh Pandey R/O Village- Chamanpura, P.S.- Baikunthpur, Dist.- Gopalganj, PIN Code- 841416. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual mode.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2011, FIR dated 13.09.2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364/365/366A/34 of IPC.

3. As per prosecution case, the informant Uma Devi alleged that on 02.09.2011 at about 5:30 A.M., her minor daughter Pratima Kumari aged about 15 years was allegedly abducted by the accused persons namely Shree Krishna Singh, Ram Krishna Kumar, Punam Devi and Narendra Tiwary in a

2/4 Marshal Jeep while she had gone outside. On shouting by informant local people gathered but the accused persons fled away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a compromise arrived between informant and Ram Krishna Kumar, against whom the allegation of sexual assault was made and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considering the age of victim to be major, had granted privilege of anticipatory bail to the co-accused Ram Krishan Kumar and the petitioner, who is a driver and being an illiterate, was made to believe by his owner Ram Krishna Kumar that the issues have been resolved and there is no requirement of taking any legal recourses in this case.

However, very recently police officials visited the place of residence of the petitioner and to take recourses in law the present anticipatory bail application is said to have been filed. It has next been submitted that the petitioner is a driver and is in no way related to the alleged offence while the main allegation is against co-accused Ram Krishna Kumar. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

3/4 anticipatory bail application.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1st Class, Gopalganj in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2011, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or

4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) Abhishek/- U T