Patna High Court
Sachit Paswan @ Suchit Paswan @ Sushil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and rejected the petitioner’s bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Sachit Paswan, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging kidnapping with intent to marry. He claimed a clean antecedent and argued that the victim’s statement, recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, was made under parental pressure and lacked medical corroboration. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement that both the petitioner and co‑accused Amarjeet Kumar had committed the alleged offence. The court noted that the victim, a 20‑year‑old adult, had not undergone a medical examination and that the co‑accused had previously been granted bail. After considering the submissions, the court declined to grant bail, directing that the petitioner could re‑apply after the charge sheet is framed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under Section 366 IPC given the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
- Whether the absence of a medical examination of the victim affects the merit of the bail application.
- Whether the prior grant of regular bail to a co‑accused influences the petitioner’s bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 366
Subjects
- bail
- Section 366 IPC
- kidnapping with intent to marry
- victim statement
- Section 164 CrPC
- medical examination
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16768 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2021 Thana- AAYAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Sachit Paswan @ Suchit Paswan @ Sushil Kumar S/o Baban Paswan @
Baban Ram Resident of Village - Isarhi, P.S.- Aayar, District - Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Laxman Mahto S/o Late Kalpnath Singh Resident of Village - Isarhi, P.S.-
Aayar, District - Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that his daughter had gone to attend the call of nature but
did not return and during search, it transpired that petitioner has
kidnapped the victim girl with an intent to marry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that the victim came back and
her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16768 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/3
parental pressure wherein she stated that petitioner and Amarjeet
Kumar committed wrong with her. It is next submitted that
Amarjeet Kumar had approached this Court seeking regular bail
by filing Cr. Misc. No. 67106 of 2023 and the same came to be
allowed vide order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the then learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is also submitted that
petitioner is also in custody since 09.02.2026.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that the
victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has
supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that
petitioner along with Amarjeet Kumar committed wrong. It is
further submitted that Amarjeet Kumar was in judicial custody
since 21.04.2023 and was granted the privilege of regular bail
by an order dated 06.02.2024.
6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that though the victim alleges that
wrong was committed but then she did not get herself medically
examined. It is further submitted that the victim is a major aged
about 20 years and she was having friendly relation with the
petitioner and had accompanied the petitioner on her own sweet
will but when the instant case came to be instituted she came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16768 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/3
back and under parental pressure implicated the petitioner and
Amarjeet Kumar without any medical examination.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in
connection with Aayar P.S. Case No. 93 of 2021 pending in the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII,
Bhojpur at Ara/Successor Court.
8. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…