Gopi Kishan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37033 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-805 Year-2025 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Gopi Kishan S/o Raj Kumar Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Jamui, P.S. - Dulhin Bazar, District - Patna at present Resident of Mohalla - Ramnagari Ashiyana, P.S. - Rajiv Nagar, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 74, 318(4), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 12.12.2025 while she was going to her relative's place, when petitioner intercepted her and tried to forcefully make her sit on his motorcycle but on alarm, he fled, next alleges that when informant was working with the petitioner's organization, the petitioner made her consume some intoxicated medicine and thereafter established physical relation and
2/4 recorded obscene video of the informant and started exploiting her physically, further petitioner also had kept cheque numbers from 357771-377781, after getting the same signed and when the informant stopped going to his organization, the petitioner presented the cheque worth Rs.27 lacs for encashment which bounced, as such the informant made a complain to the S.S.P, further the petitioner also took signature of the informant on blank papers with an intent to blackmail her worker.
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 from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that same does not inspire confidence as the informant does not disclose that as to when she was working with the organization of the petitioner when petitioner after intoxicating her, established physical relation. It is next submitted that petitioner and the brother of the informant were known to each other and the informant was a student in the Dance Academy of the petitioner and her course ended in the year 2016-17. It is further submitted that since petitioner was running a Dance Academy, as such he needed a piece of land for extending his Dance Academy as such he requested the brother of the informant for providing
3/4 him with land. It is further submitted that father and brother of the informant along with the informant had showed a land at Rajiv Nagar, Patna for a consideration of Rs. 36 lacs, as such petitioner credited an amount of Rs.7 lacs-8 lacs in the account of the informant and her brother as would manifest from Annexure-3 to the anticipatory bail application and rest amount was paid in cash but then the land was not provided to him as such the petitioner asked for refund of his amount when the cheques were issued and the same on presentation for encashment bounced. It is also submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that if what has been alleged by the informant that petitioner by intoxicating her established physical relation, then why no FIR came to be instituted.
It is further submitted that since the cheques issued by the informant bounced as such Complaint Case No.1442C of 2019 has been instituted, in which cognizance has been taken, as such by way of afterthought the instant FIR came to be instituted in 2025. It is submitted that petitioner is a respected citizen and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
4/4
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No.805 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner despite giving assurance to this court is not co-operating in the investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T