Patna High Court – Orders
Arun Kumar Rai @ Arun Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 20 May, 2026
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33910 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1150 Year-2015 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Arun Kumar Rai @ Arun Rai S/O Late Madan Rai R/O Village- Sahpur
Barath, P.S- Patori, District- Samastipur
2. Vinod Rai S/O Late Madan Rai R/O Village- Sahpur Barath, P.S- Patori,
District- Samastipur
3. Pankaj Kumar Rai @ Pankaj Rai S/O Arun Rai @ Arun Kumar Rai R/O
Village- Sahpur Barath, P.S- Patori, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Sanju Devi Wife of Haresh Pandit Resident of Village- Jalalpur, P.S.- Patori,
District- Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No.1150 of 2015, F.I.R dated
10.06.2015 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 149, 341, 342, 448, 364 and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, the accused persons
allegedly took away the complainant’s son after assuring that he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33910 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
would return soon, but he did not return. Subsequently, on
08.06.2015, the complainant received a phone call from her son
stating that the accused persons were demanding a ransom of
Rs. 2 lakhs and had threatened to kill him if the amount was not
paid within two days. It has further been alleged that despite
approaching the police authorities, no FIR was lodged. The
alleged motive behind the occurrence is that the daughter of
Vinod Rai had fled away, and the accused persons suspected the
complainant’s son and his nephew of having taken her away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
son of the complainant, namely, Raja Pandit, along with his
nephew, Jila Pandit, had taken away the daughter of petitioner
No. 2, namely, Vinod Rai. It is further submitted that, upon
pressure being exerted by the family members of petitioner No. 2
upon the complainant, the daughter of petitioner No. 2 returned
to her house and, in order to safeguard her future, no case was
instituted against the son of the complainant. It has been
contended that, in this background and with a view to avoid
future complications, the complainant has instituted the present
complaint case against these petitioners alleging kidnapping of
his son, whereas, in fact, the complainant’s son returned home
after five days of the alleged incident, on his own.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33910 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the son of the complainant has already returned home and
the complaint is pending before the Court concerned, which will
be brought to a logical conclusion, as per the evidences adduced
by the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – IX,
Samastipur, in connection with Complaint Case No.1150 of
2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following
conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33910 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
