Patna High Court

Sajan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

Bail was not granted to the petitioner at this stage.

Summary

The petitioner, Sajan Kumar, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 140(4), 61(2), 64 & 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the ITP Act, alleging that the main accusation pertained to his father’s involvement in human trafficking and prostitution. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, forcibly carried and assaulted two girls, and that one victim, Pushpa Devi, specifically identified the petitioner as the person who caught her while she tried to flee and forced her into prostitution. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the victims’ statements under Section 183 of the BNS did not implicate him except for a single incident of catching a fleeing victim. The State’s counsel countered that the petitioner was actively harboring the victims and preventing them from leaving. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, directing that the petitioner may re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in offences under the BNS and ITP Acts involving alleged human trafficking and prostitution
Whether the statements of the victims and the nature of the alleged offences justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 140(4), 3(5), 61(2), 64

Subjects

bail
human trafficking
prostitution
BNS Act
ITP Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11059 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-447 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Sajan Kumar Son of Sanjay Khalifa R/O Village- Nadailghat, P.S.- Bakhari,
                 District- Begusarai
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   15-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Bakhari P.S. Case No.447 of 2025 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 140(4), 61(2), 64 & 3(5) of the BNS

                   and under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the ITP Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that police

                   received an information that the petitioner along with others were

                   carrying girls forcefully and were assaulting them. On this

                   information, police reached there. It is further alleged that

                   petitioner along with others was arrested and two ladies were also

                   arrested.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   has submitted that from perusal of the FIR it will transpire that the

                   main thrust of allegation is against the father of the petitioner as
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11059 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      he was indulged in the offence of human trafficking and

                      prostitution thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

                      further submitted that during course of investigation both the

                      victim who were arrested have given their statement under

                      Section 183 of the BNSS and they have not implicated anything

                      except that the petitioner has caught one of the victim while she

                      was attempting to flee away.

                                   5. Countering this,         learned APP for the State has

                      vehemently opposed the bail and has submitted that victim Pushpa

                      Devi has specifically stated that when she was attempting to flee

                      away, she was being caught by the petitioner and was brought to

                      the house where they were forced to do prostitution. Learned APP

                      has further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is

                      that of harboring the victims from moving away from the house.

                                   6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not

                      inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, the

                      petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the

                      trial is not concluded.



                                             (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…