Patna High Court
Raushan Yadav @ Raushan RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Raushan Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a kidnapping case under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR, lodged on 11 June 2023, alleged that the petitioner had abducted the informant’s 15‑year‑old daughter who had allegedly eloped with him on 20 May 2023. The petitioner claimed a clean record and argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s alleged consent indicated a false implication. The State opposed bail, highlighting the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, which supported the prosecution’s kidnapping charge, and noting that a minor’s consent is legally invalid. The court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the allegations serious and the victim’s testimony credible. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged kidnapping of a minor under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the IPC.
- Whether the delay of more than 20 days in filing the FIR warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, supporting the prosecution, defeats the petitioner's claim of false implication.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366(A)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- delay in FIR
- elopement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17214 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-569 Year-2023 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR District-
Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Raushan Yadav @ Raushan Raj S/O Mohan Ray R/O Vill.- Yadav Nagar, P.S-
Sadar, Dist. - Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Nitu Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and
366(A) 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 on 20.05.2023, at about 07:00 p.m., his minor
daughter, aged about 15 years, left home for market but did not
return and thereafter a search was made but the victim could not
be located. Further, 3-4 days later, the informant received a
phone call on his mobile from mobile no. 7488772952 and the
person claimed to be Raushan (petitioner) and he disclosed that
the victim is with him. The informant, accordingly, went to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17214 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
house of the accused when family members of the petitioner
assured that the victim would be returned within one week but
then the victim did not turn-up, as such, the instant FIR was
instituted.
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 date of occurrence is
20.05.2023 and the FIR came to be instituted on 11.06.2023,
i.e., after a delay of more than 20 days. It is next submitted that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that the informant himself alleges that his daughter had
gone to the market but did not return which amply demonstates
that the victim had eloped with the petitioner. It is also
submitted that petitioner and the victim were in love and they
eloped. It is further submitted that the victim came back and her
statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that no doubt, the
FIR has been instituted after a delay of more than 20 days but
then that in itself is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail to
the petitioner. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
order impugned, it would manifest that the same records that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17214 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
supported the case of the prosecution which amply demonstrates
that the victim supported the allegation of kidnapping. It is next
submitted that even presuming that petitioner and the victim
were in love and they eloped but then the victim is a minor aged
about 15 years and the consent of a minor does not have the
legitimacy of law.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with
Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 569 of 2023 pending in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Muzaffarpur/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…