Dr. Ankit Kumar Aman @ Ankit Kumar Aman @ Ankit Anand Mithilesh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91108 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2023 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Dr. Ankit Kumar Aman @ Ankit Kumar Aman @ Ankit Anand Mithilesh Son of Ramdeo Sah R/o Vill. - Jalwar, P.S. -Gamhariya, Distt. - Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, on 22.03.2023, daughter of informant went out of the house to depose in connection with Gamhariya P.S. Case No. 57 of 2017 but did not return. Informant believes that all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including this petitioner, kidnapped her daughter.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R..
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91108 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026 2/2 Name of petitioner surfaced in this case during investigation, only on the basis of restatement of the informant. There is no material on record to show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner transpired in this case during investigation and the victim is still traceless.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence and fact that the victim is still traceless, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T