Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Madan Kumar @ Madan PrajapativersusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.

Summary

Petitioner Madan Kumar was arrested in a case registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC for alleged kidnapping and theft of his own daughter, who was reported missing on 31.01.2024. The petitioner contended that he and the victim, a 20‑year‑old adult, had eloped and married in a temple, but the marriage was opposed by the victim’s family due to it being inter‑caste, leading to a later statement under Section 164 CrPC that he had forced the marriage. The victim later married another man, and the informant, who is also the victim’s father, did not oppose the anticipatory bail application. The State argued that the informant had no grievance and that detention would serve no useful purpose. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., subject to a bail bond of Rs.2,000 with two sureties and other conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
  • Whether the contradictory statements of the victim affect the necessity of pre‑emptive detention.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • Section 363 IPC
  • Section 366 IPC
  • inter‑caste marriage
  • false implication
  • kidnapping
  • theft

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19528 of 2026
                           Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- ANTI District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Madan Kumar @ Madan Prajapati S/O Hardev Prajapati @ Malu Prajapati
                 R/O Mohalla- Sanda, P.S- Tekari, Distt.- Gayaji.
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Raju Sao S/O Late Awadh Sao R/O Village- Chabura, P.S- Aati, Distt.-
                  Gayaji.
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No. I, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   13-05-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

                   Chandra Bhushan Prasad, 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. The petitioner and the informant are present in the

                   Court, in compliance of the order dated 07.05.2026, along with

                   the Investigating Officer of the case.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that petitioner was residing with his maternal

                   grandfather in village Chabura and did the work of labour. It is

                   next alleged that on 31.01.2024, at 05:30 a.m., his daughter,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19528 of 2026(5) dt.13-05-2026
                                            2/4




          aged about 20 years, went missing and thereafter a search was

          made but the victim could not be found and villagers informed

          that the victim was seen accompanying the petitioner, thus,

          alleges that petitioner enticed his daughter for marrying.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the

          allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the

          victim was aged about 20 years and, thus, was a major. It is next

          submitted that petitioner and the victim were in love and they

          eloped and even performed their marriage in a temple but then

          the marriage was not accepted by the informant as the marriage

          was inter-caste. It is also submitted that the victim also sworn an

          affidavit dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure-2 to the anticipatory bail

          application) stating that she has married the petitioner but after

          she came back her statement was recorded under Section 164

          Cr.P.C. wherein she said that she was made unconscious and

          petitioner forcefully married her and thereafter established

          physical relation.

                       6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

          that since the marriage was inter-caste marriage, hence, the

          victim under parental pressure made her statement under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19528 of 2026(5) dt.13-05-2026
                                            3/4




          Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the victim now

          has been married to another boy.

                       7. The informant, who is present in the Court, does

          not dispute the said submissions of the learned counsel

          appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the victim has been

          married to another boy.

                       8. On query of the Court that as to whether the

          informant opposes the anticipatory bail application of the

          petitioner, the informant submits that he is not opposing the

          anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

                       9. Learned A.P.P. for the State, thus, submits that

          when the informant himself is not having any grievance with the

          petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by sending the

          petitioner to jail.

                       10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

          let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or

          surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released

          on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,000/-

          (Rupees Two Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case

          is pending/Successor Court in connection with Aati P.S. Case

          No. 12 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19528 of 2026(5) dt.13-05-2026
                                                       4/4




                     Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                                  11. The personal appearance of the petitioner,

                     informant and the Investigating Officer of the case, who was

                     asked to accompany the informant, is dispensed with.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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