Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sushil Sharma @ Sushil Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

The petitioner, Sushil Sharma, sought bail in a kidnapping case (PS Case No. 48 of 2024) where he was alleged to have participated in the abduction of a minor under IPC sections 363, 366(A), 34, the SC/ST (POA) Act and the POCSO Act. He contended that the FIR was filed after an inordinate delay, that the informant was not an eye‑witness, and that the victim’s statement indicated a voluntary relationship with co‑accused Sunil Kumar, not a kidnapping. The petitioner also highlighted that a co‑accused, Virendra Sharma, had already been granted anticipatory bail and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail application. Considering the clean antecedent, the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, and the victim’s voluntary statement, the Court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail if arrested or surrendered within six weeks, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order also imposed standard bail conditions regarding court appearances, non‑tampering with witnesses, and refraining from further offences.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail/anticipatory bail in the kidnapping case under the applicable statutes.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • anticipatory bail
  • kidnapping
  • IPC
  • SC/ST Act
  • POCSO Act
  • clean antecedent
  • victim statement
  • delay in FIR

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16627 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2024 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Sushil Sharma @ Sushil Kumar Sharma Son of Vikau Sharma Resident of
                 Village- Baswariya Chouk Laxminagar, P.S.- Mehsoul O.P., District-
                 Sitamarhi

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.    X X Wife of Late Y Y Resident of Village- Barewa, P.S.- Dhaka, District-
                 East Champaran

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s       :     Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mrs. Harsha Shaswat, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Binay Krishna, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-04-2026                          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection

                   with Dhaka P.S. Case No. 48 of 2024, registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 363, 366 (A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code

                   and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and section 8

                   of POCSO Act.

                                 3. As per the FIR, informant’s daughter had been

                   kidnapped by the co-accused persons and the petitioner.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It

                   is next submitted that it would evident from the F.I.R itself that the

                   informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. The specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 16627 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                            2/3




          allegation of kidnapping is leveled against co-accused, Sunil Kumar.

          Petitioner has not participated in the kidnapping of the informant’s

          daughter. It has also been pointed out that the present FIR has been

          instituted after an inordinate delay of 10 days. The victim girl after

          recovery has been examined under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C

          and in the said statement, she has accepted that she had gone along

          with co-accused Sunil Kumar voluntarily as both of them were

          having a love affair and they have also solemnized marriage and are

          staying as husband and wife. It is further submitted that co-accused,

          Virendra Sharma, has already been extended the privilege of

          anticipatory bail vide order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

          57320 of 2024 and the case of the petitioner stands on similar

          footing. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner has no criminal

          antecedents.

                       5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has

          opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

          keeping in view clean antecedent of the petitioner, co-accused has

          already been granted anticipatory bail, let the above named

          petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender

          before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from

          today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)

          each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge POCSO
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 16627 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                          3/3




                       Act, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar in connection with Dhaka P.S.

                       Case No. 48 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under

                       Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the 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;

                                    (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)
vashudha/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.