Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89986 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2025 Thana- NIMACHANDPURA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Raushan Kumar Son of Raj Kishore Sahni @ Raj Kishor Sahni R/O VillageAjhaur, P.S.- Nima Chandpura, Distt.- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

x x.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Nimachandpura P.S. Case no. 95 of 2025 registered under section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the petitioner and one another accused on a motorcycle made an attempt to kidnap her minor daughter but as a result of the intervention of the co-villagers, while the petitioner was caught the other accused persons managed to escape.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of previous dispute between the parties. Reference is made to the earlier

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89986 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026 2/2 complaint filed by the mother of the petitioner, details of which has been given in paragraph no. 13 of the petition. The petitioner is in custody since 1.9.2025 and has no criminal antecedent. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner besides being named in the FIR, there is allegation of his attempting to having kidnap the minor daughter of the informant which has also been supported by the victim in her statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR together with the contents of the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after four months or on framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T