Jay Prakash Kumar Thakur @ Jay Prakash Sharma @ Biru Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79334 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2025 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Jay Prakash Kumar Thakur @ Jay Prakash Sharma @ Biru Sharma Son of Narayan Sharma @ Narayan Thakur R/o Village - Bharam, P.S. - Bhairav Sthan, Dist. - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rajani Kant Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64(1), 137(2), 87, 140(3), 76 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. Petitioner along with other accused persons are said to have kidnapped the daughter of the informant and also demanded a ransom of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the First Information Report itself discloses that on 22.05.2025 itself the informant had realized that her daughter was missing in the night after she had gone to the toilet. Thereafter, even on 23.05.2025 they were all busy in the marriage in the neighbourhood and she only disclosed to her brother at Delhi that her daughter was missing. Further, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79334 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026 2/3 26.05.2025, she claims to have received a phone call from the petitioner, his brother and his father that they have kidnapped her daughter. Further, on 28.05.2026, another phone call was received asking for ransom. However, her daughter came back home on the same day i.e. 28.05.2025 whereafter, she disclosed that she was being subjected to some sexual exploitation and thereafter it has again been alleged that on 31.05.2025, the petitioner and his brother came to her house again for the purposes of kidnapping.
It has been argued that the entire narration of the events in the First Information Report itself makes the entire case doubtful and does not seem to be believable that for so many days the informant did not take any steps of informing the police and FIR was lodged on 31.05.2025. Further, the statement of the victim girl under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. clearly discloses that she is aged about 19 years and she was in love relationship with the petitioner and had left home 22.05.2025 on being allured by the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79334 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026 3/3 17 to 18 years. Further, the petitioner is in custody since 31.05.2025 with no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR coupled with the fact that 183 statement of the victim also indicates that there was love relationship between the petitioner and the victim, let the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Raj Nagar P.S. Case No. 222 of 2025, subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall appear on each and every date till the charges framed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) devendra/- U T