Rishikesh Kumar Singh @ Rishikesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66121 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2024 Thana- INDUSTRIAL AREA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rishikesh Kumar Singh @ Rishikesh Kumar S/o Anil Kumar Singh @ Santosh Singh, Resident of Village - Hilalpur, Police Station - Industrial Area in the district of Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Rani Devi Wife of Harishankar Sah, Resident of Village - Hilalpur, Police Station - Industrial Area in the district of Vaishali. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Meena Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 51 of 2024, dated 18.04.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation in the FIR is that the informant's daughter was kidnapped by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the FIR in the present case has been lodged after a delay of two days as it has been stated that the victim had left her home for attending the call of nature on 15.04.2024,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66121 of 2025(2) dt.19-09-2025 2/3 whereas the written report was lodged on 17.04.2024, thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 18.04.2024 and the delay of two days remains unexplained. He next submits that the victim, after her return, has not fully supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and the order of the learned Sessions judge also indicates that she has only stated that the accused is known to her and further in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., she has stated that she was informed by another person about the case against the present petitioner, whereafter she sent a letter that the petitioner had helped her by giving her some money. He lastly submits that the victim girl is not a minor and she had left her home out of her own volition.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the victim has not completely supported the case of the prosecution in her statements before police and Court coupled with the delay in lodging of the FIR, let the petitioner, abovenamed, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66121 of 2025(2) dt.19-09-2025 3/3 concerned within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 51 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Shahnawaz/- U T