Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the allegations and the victim’s statements warranted the continuation of custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, applied for regular bail under section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a kidnapping case involving a 12‑year‑old girl. The prosecution alleged that the girl was abducted for marriage and that the petitioner’s mobile number was found in the FIR, linking him to the crime. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to a neighbour dispute and pointed out inconsistencies in the victim’s statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., where she claimed she left home because of her mother’s ill‑treatment and later said she married a co‑accused, Rahul Raj, not the petitioner. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement under section 183 that she was kidnapped by the petitioner and the co‑accused. The court examined the FIR allegations, the victim’s statements, and the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal record. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s testimony, the court was not persuaded to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the victim’s statements under sections 180 and 183.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 183, 87
Subjects
- regular bail
- kidnapping
- minor victim
- false implication
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- section 87
- section 180
- section 183
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13010 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2025 Thana- TARAPUR District- Munger
======================================================
Rohit Kumar S/o Upendra Poddar R/o village- Fajeliganj, P.S.- Tarapur,
District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX S/o - YYY Permanent R/o vill - Teldiha, P.S.- Shambhuganj, Distt.-
Banka, and at present R/o Kushwaha Colony, Renter in the house of
Narmada Singh, P.S- Tarapur, Distt.- Munger
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Keertika Sakshi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Tarapur P.S. Case
no.213 of 2025, registered under section 87 of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that his younger daughter, who is aged about 12 years, a student
of Class-IV, was not to be found inspite of search. It is further
stated that she was in touch with one person whose mobile
number is mentioned in the FIR and the said mobile number
belongs to the petitioner herein. The informant states that he is
convinced that his minor daughter has been kidnapped for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13010 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
purpose of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
case. The petitioner and the informant are neighbours and there
is dispute over passage between them which has led to the false
implication. The victim girl was recovered and her statement
was recorded both under sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. It
is stated that besides there being variance in her two statements,
in her statement under section 180 of the B.N.S.S., she has
stated that she left her house due to the ill treatment of her
mother. Even accepting the statement under section 183 of the
BNSS, she has stated that she married the co-accused Rahul Raj
and not the petitioner herein. The petitioner is in custody since
11.11.2025 and has no criminal antecedent. He undertakes to
cooperate in the investigation/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State who submits that the minor victim, who is said to
be aged about 12 years, in her statement under section 183
B.N.S.S has supported the prosecution case about being
kidnapped by the petitioner and the co-accused Rahul Raj.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R together
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13010 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
with the contents of the statement of the 12 year old victim
under section 183 B.N.S.S wherein she states about being
kidnapped by the accused persons including the petitioner
herein, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail
and the application is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
Checking your session…