Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75811/2025bail granted

Jitendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-21Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75811 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Jitendra Kumar S/O Jang Bahdaur Yadav Resident of Village- Bahiro, P.S.- Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP For the Victim :

Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the victim and learned APP for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 205 of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 140(3), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, one Sonu Kumar was abducted by the FIR named co-accused persons and name of the petitioner subsequently transpired in this case during investigation.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner came up for the first time in the statement of the victim recorded by the

2/4 police wherein he stated that the petitioner has been driving the vehicle in which he was abducted by other co-accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that during investigation it has come on record that the victim and one Shubham Kumar were business partners and they suffered loss in their business and coaccused Shubham Kumar demanded compensation from the victim. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner who was not apprehended from the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered from person or possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has no connection with the victim Sonu Kumar. The prosecution story is also not believable that the victim himself went to the house of the informant telling him that he has been kidnapped for five days. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is having clean antecedent and he is in custody since 04.06.2025. Charge sheet has been submitted.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the victim oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the victim submits that the during investigation it has come on record that petitioner was all along present when the victim was taken to a number of places being driven by the petitioner and he was knowing about what offences are being committed. Learned counsel further submits

3/4 that the informant was also in collusion with the accused persons. The prayer for bail of the similarly placed co-accused persons namely Rohit Kumar in Cr. Misc No. 69337 of 2025, Suman Shukla in Cr. Misc. No. 69228 of 2025 and Sanjay Kumar in Cr. Misc. No. 69683 of 2025 was rejected by a Coordinate Bench vide a common order dated 19.12.2025.

6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the background of dispute and also considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner and his clean antecedent, period of custody and submission of charge sheet, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara/concerned court, in connection with Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 205 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the BNSS and other following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court

4/4 below, if so required by the learned trial court.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Anuradha/- U T