Rajan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 February, 2026

Patna High Court – Orders

Rajan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 February, 2026

Author: Ajit Kumar

Bench: Ajit Kumar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2901 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-444 Year-2023 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Rajan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar S/o Lakhindra Sah R/o Vill- Raksa Purvi
                 Tola, P.S.- Panapur, District- Muzaffarpur
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Manoj Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Ms.Pushpa Sinha,APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   20-02-2026

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises

out of Karja Police Station Case No. 444 of 2023 dated

23.12.2023, disclosing the offence under Sections 406, 420,

341, 365, 504, 506/34 of the IPC lodged by the informant, Sita

Devi.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged

that she and her son, namely, Ranjit Kumar used to work in the

Kurkure Factory located in Raksa and sometimes, she used to

go to the factory vehicle to load and unload the factory goods.

Her son Ranjit Kumar’s salary of two months was pending. On

demanding the same, the factory owner used to postpone the

salary by adopting dilly-dallying tactics. On 03.12.2023, till

evening her son did not return to home, so, on 4.12.2023, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2901 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4

morning, she went to the factory in search of her son. When the

factory owners 1. Ranjan Kumar (petitioner herein), 2. Tipu

Kumar, 3. Rajesh Kumar were inquired regarding whereabouts

of her son, then all of them pretended to know nothing rather

abused and pushed her away. Accordingly, the present FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has

falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of

apprehension which would be evident from the narration of the

FIR itself. He further submits by referring to the statements

recorded by the victim, Ranjit Kumar on his return from Tamil

Nadu and the FIR which is said to have been lodged by his

mother/informant, there is discrepancy on the dates which

according to the informant’s statement, her son was missing

since 03.12.2023 while as per the statement recorded by the

victim, he was at his home till 04.12.2023, from-where the

petitioner is said to have taken the victim to Tamil Nadu.

Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in the paragraph-4

of the present petition.

5. On the other hand, learned APP opposes the

prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but concedes that

the victim boy has returned to his home.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2901 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4

6. Considering the fact that the FIR has been

lodged only on the basis of apprehension, the victim has

returned to his home and the petitioner has got clean antecedent,

this Court is inclined to grant the petitioners the privilege of

anticipatory bail.

7. This application for anticipatory bail is,

accordingly, allowed.

8. Let the petitioner, named above, in the event of

their arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks

from today, 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 learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

West Muzaffarpur in connection with aforesaid Police Station

Case subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482 (2)

of the B.N.S.S. 2023, as well as the following conditions:-

(i) one of the bailors should
be the family member/relative of the
petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;

(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 bail bond by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2901 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4

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

(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 his/her bail bonds.

(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez

U T