Sahil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43419 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2025 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== Sahil Kumar S/o Shailendra Paswan @ Satyendra Paswan R/o VillageDhakwahachak, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Prince Kumar singh, S/o- Late Upendra Prasad Singh R/O villKajmunichak, ward no.- 20, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Earlier notices issued to O.P. No. 2 were validly served. However, no one appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2. Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in Barh P.S. case No. 259 of 2025 registered under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution allegation, in short, is that two bhagini of the informant went missing from his house and it was discovered that two boys including the petitioner kept them hidden.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43419 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel submits that no occurrence as alleged has taken place. It is further submitted that the victims themselves on their sweet will left informant's house. There is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP submits that the victim was recovered from the house of co-accused and the petitioner fled away from the spot. Considering the allegation, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Co-accused has been granted bail regular bail by this Court.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and nature and gravity of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer is rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Pankaj/- U T