Arvind Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80600 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-377 Year-2025 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Son of Arvind Prasad Resident of Village - Adalchak, P.S. - Tharthari, Dist. - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79931 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-377 Year-2025 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Arvind Prasad S/o- Late Ramchandra Gope R/v- Adalchak Ps- Tharthari DistNalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 80600 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ramji Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79931 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ramji Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026 Criminal Miscellaneous No.80600 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 308(4) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
2/6
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he is a political worker of a political party and had come to the party office. It is next allege that after few hours, Rahul Kumar (petitioner) along with four named accused persons and five unknown accused came and demanded extortion of Rs.10 lakhs and on refusal, the accused persons took him to a lonely place and Arvind Prasad with rod and Rahul Kumar with butt of pistol assaulted causing injury. Further, when he fell, all accused assaulted him by rod causing injury on head and fled thinking that informant is dead.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that he is a political worker and had come to the office of the political party where the accused persons including the petitioner came and demanded extortion of Rs.10 lakhs and on refusal they forcibly took him to a lonely place and thereafter assaulted. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable that petitioner along with other accused persons would have entered office of a political party and thereafter would
3/6 have demanded extortion of Rs.10 lakhs from the informant and on refusal would have forcibly taken him to a lonely place and assaulted. It is also submitted that every office of a political party is buzzing with people, as such, the allegations do not inspire confidence. It is next submitted that a supplementary affidavit has been filed and Bihar P.S. Case No.280 of 2022, dated 21.04.2022 has been annexed by way of Annexure-P/2. The said FIR was instituted by Malti Devi, the mother-in-law of Rahul Kumar alleging that the instant informant had kidnapped her minor daughter. It is next submitted that in order to coerce the mother-in-law and father-in-law into submission, the instant false case came to be instituted alleging that this petitioner along with his father Arvind Prasad were involved in the occurrence of committing assault.
It is next submitted that no doubt the injury suffered by the informant has been opined to be grievous but then from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, as submitted, does not inspire confidence and the informant also alleges that Arvind Prasad and Rahul Kumar assaulted him by rod and butt of pistol and thereafter he fell and thereafter other accused also assaulted him.
5. Learned APP vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application by submitting that the injured has suffered
4/6 multiple injuries and the injuries are on vital part of the body, i.e., head and have been opined to be grievous in nature. It is also submitted that he has gone through the case diary and from perusal of para-57 of the case dairy, it would manifest that same records in detail about the occurrence based on CCTV footage. The learned APP fairly submits that though in the FIR, it appears that an exaggerated allegation of demanding ransom is alleged but then from perusal of the CCTV footage, as recorded in the case diary, it manifests that petitioner along with Saurabh and others were present at the place of occurrence and had made the informant sit in a car and thereafter they went away and on the way, Arvind Prasad also met along with two other accused.
It is next submitted that there may not be an eye-witness to the occurrence of assault but then the CCTV footage clearly captures the footage showing that this petitioner was present at the place of occurrence and subsequently on the way, Arvind Prasad, who is father of the instant petitioner, also met and thereafter the occurrence was committed. It is also submitted that criminal cases cut both ways. It is next submitted that it might be a possibility that since sister-in-law of Rahul Kumar was kidnapped by the informant, as such, the occurrence of assault was committed leading to grievous injury.
5/6
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that CCTV footage captures the picture of petitioner along with other accused including Arvind Prasad, who is father of the instant petitioner, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No.377 of 2025, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Biharsharif.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.79931 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 308(4) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and is father of Rahul Kumar (petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.80600 of 2025)
4. At this stage, the learned APP submits that son of the petitioner, namely, Rahul Kumar had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.80600 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order
6/6 dated 12.03.2026. It is further submitted that case of the petitioner, if not akin, is similar to the case of Rahul Kumar. It is also submitted that informant sustained grievous injuries on vital part of the body.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned APP.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the order dated 12.03.2026 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.80600 of 2025, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No.377 of 2025, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Biharsharif.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T