Patna High Court
Md. JaffarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the alleged involvement of a minor negated the possibility of valid consent.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Jaffar, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that he induced a minor, the daughter of an informant, to run away for marriage. The petitioner contended that the victim voluntarily accompanied him, as reflected in her statement under Section 180 BNSS, and that the allegations of kidnapping were false. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the victim was a minor and that a minor's consent is legally invalid. The court examined the submissions and the statutory framework concerning minors and anticipatory bail. Concluding that the involvement of a minor precludes granting bail, the court rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offence involves a minor and the purported consent of the minor is invalid under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 96
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- minor
- consent
- kidnapping
- marriage
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 96
- Section 180
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2706 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2024 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Md. Jaffar, S/o Md. Taiyab R/o Village - Bank Ward No. 10, P.S - Dandari,
District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Braj Bhusan Poddar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Bachhawara P.S. Case No. 407 of 2024 registered for the
offence under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he
induced the daughter of the informant and fled away for the
purpose of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and, in fact,
the petitioner and the victim are distant relatives. It has further
been submitted that the victim in her statement under Section
180 BNSS has categorically stated that it was she who had
called the petitioner to the station and they had gone along with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2706 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/2
the petitioner to Delhi and thereafter she even solemnized
marriage. It has next been submitted that the petitioner has
falsely been implicated and the allegations of kidnapping or
enticing is false. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner
carries clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail and has stated that even if, from the
statement of the victim, it would appear that she had gone with
the petitioner out of her own will but the fact that she is a minor
cannot be denied. It has next been submitted that the consent of
a minor is no consent and therefore the petitioner should not be
given the liberty of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
parties, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
anticipatory bail.
7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.