Sunil Prasad Singh @ Sushil Prasad Singh @ Nanki v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58256 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2025 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
Sunil Prasad Singh @ Sushil Prasad Singh @ Nanki S/o Munshilal Prasad Singh @ Munshilal Prasad @ Munshi Lal Singh R/o Village- Ramauli, PSKalyanpur, Distt- Samastipur 2.
Tejnarayan Prasad Singh @ Budhan S/o Munshilal Prasad Singh @ Munshilal Prasad @ Munshi Lal Singh R/o Village- Ramauli, PSKalyanpur, Distt- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Madhav Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners have antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that she came to know that her son, aged about 16 years, was kidnapped by Nishant, Tej Narayan and Sunil along with 4-5 unknown accused by a white Scorpio, further the informant received a call on mobile of her son from Mobile No.8051070587 and the caller asked to return his daughter or else her son would be killed and in the background cries of her son could be heard, next alleges that her son Vikram and daughter of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58256 of 2025(2) dt.08-09-2025 2/3 Jai Narayan Singh are missing since 18.02.2025 and efforts are being made to locate them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case by the informant for the reason that son of the informant Vikram had kidnapped the daughter of petitioner no.2 for which Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.56 of 2025 was instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the FIR, the informant wrongly alleges that her son Vikram and daughter of Jai Narayan Singh were missing when it was daughter of petitioner no.2 who along with Vikram was missing. It is submitted that both daughter of petitioner no.2 and son of the informant came back. The statement of the son of the informant was recorded by the police wherein he supported the case of the prosecution.
It is submitted that son of the informant is falsely implicating the petitioners as they are father and uncle of the victim whom the son of the informant had kidnapped. It is next submitted that petitioners have falsely been implicated with a view to coerce the petitioners into submission so that they do not pursue Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.56 of 2025. It is next submitted that had the petitioners been involved in the occurrence, in that event, Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.56 of 2025 would not have been instituted.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58256 of 2025(2) dt.08-09-2025 3/3 their innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, let petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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 Dalsingh Sarai P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that if the investigating officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioners despite giving assurance to this Court are not cooperating in the investigation, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T