Patna High Court
Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar @ Deelip MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order denying bail is set aside and the appellant is granted bail.
Summary
The appellant, Dilip Mandal, was charged with kidnapping the minor daughter of the respondent, Veena Devi, and allegedly abusing her with caste-based slurs. The prosecution alleged that the appellant held the child for eight to ten days, returned her, and later abducted her again. The appellant’s counsel argued that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS indicated she had gone to a friend’s house after being abused by her mother and was later brought back by her father, rendering the kidnapping allegation baseless. The respondent’s counsel, however, conceded the appellant’s arguments. The court found no specific overt act establishing the appellant’s guilt and noted his lack of prior criminal record, leading it to set aside the lower court’s denial of bail. Consequently, the appellant was granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of kidnapping and caste-based abuse constitute a specific overt act sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS negates the prima facie case against the appellant.
- Whether the appellant’s lack of criminal antecedent and custodial duration warrant bail despite charges under the BNS, SC/ST Act, and POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNS) Act — s. 115(2), 126(2), 183, 3(5), 351(2), 352, 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 8
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- child protection
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- caste abuse
- criminal procedure
- prima facie case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4743 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-338 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar @ Deelip Mandal Son of Kusheshwar Mandal
@ Kusheshar Mandal @ Kusho Mandal Resident of Ward No. 09, Parbatta,
P.S. -Parbatta, District- Khagaria, Bihar, India
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vina Devi @ Veena Devi Wife of Deelip Rajak Resident of Ward No. 14,
Parbatta, P.S. -Parbatta, District- Khagaria, Bihar, India
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Khagaria whereby the prayer for bail of the
appellant in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case no. 338 of 2025
under Sections 96, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and
Sections 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) of SC/ST Act and Section 8 of the
POCSO Act.
3. The case of the respondent is that the appellant has
kidnapped the minor daughter of the respondent and kept her for
eight to ten days and returned her. Again, he took the daughter
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4743 of 2025(6) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
of the respondent and when the respondent went to complain,
she was abused with caste name.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. He
has further submitted that during course of investigation, the
victim has given her statement recorded under section 183 of the
BNSS which is there in para-49 of the case diary and from
perusal statement of the victim, it is clear that as her mother
abused her, she has gone to the house of her friend without
telling anyone. After that, she was brought back by her father.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
statement of the victim goes to show that the allegation as
levelled against the appellant under FIR is baseless. Moreover,
the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 09.09.2025
and he is having no criminal antecedent.
5. The appeal for bail is opposed by learned Spl. P.P.
for the State and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned
counsel for the respondent has conceded to the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration that there is no any specific overt act
against the appellant, the Court is inclined to allow this appeal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4743 of 2025(6) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
dated 17.10.2025 is hereby set aside.
7. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in
connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 338 of 2025 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the Learned Additional District Judge – VIth, Khagaria.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
Sneha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.