Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Kumar SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Arvind Kumar was arrested on 11 September 2024 in connection with a 2022 FIR alleging kidnapping of a 17‑year‑old girl, the informant’s minor daughter, and offences under Sections 341, 323, 363, 366A, 34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner contended that the FIR was fabricated, citing an earlier 2018 case in which he claimed to have married the girl and that the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC supported his claim. The State opposed bail, highlighting a fresh statement by the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS (2023) alleging that after the marriage the petitioner’s family members raped her in his presence. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the victim’s re‑statement, and the nature of the offences under the POCSO Act. Concluding that the allegations were grave and supported by the victim’s latest statement, the court refused the petitioner's bail application.
Issues considered
- The propriety of granting bail to the accused in a case involving kidnapping and alleged sexual offences under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s re‑statement under Section 183 of the BNSS (2023) substantiates the seriousness of the charges despite earlier statements.
- Impact of the alleged false FIR claim on the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 363, 366A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO
- false FIR
- marriage
- rape
- minor
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28651 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2022 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Kumar Sahani S/o Sri Bhagwan Sahani Resident of
village- Konhiya, P.S.- Kesariya, Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudama Devi W/o Baleshwar Singh R/o vill - Kanahiya, P.S.- Kesariya,
Distt. - East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hemant Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 16-03-2026 Heard Mr.Hemant Ray, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
11.09.2024 in connection with Kesariya P.S. Case No. 61 of
2022, F.I.R. dated 16.02.2022 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 341,323,363,366A,34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he
alongwith other co-accused persons kidnapped informant’s
minor daughter aged about 17 years.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28651 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that in fact earlier the informant has lodged the FIR bearing
Kesaria P.S.Case No.466 of 2018 for kidnapping of her
daughter, in fact the petitioner was in love with the daughter of
the informant. In the aforesaid case, the statement of the victim
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has
stated that she has performed the marriage with the present
petitioner and the present FIR has been instituted only to harass
the petitioner.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on
the basis of the material available on the record and the case
diary, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that although the victim has supported
the previous case in favour of the petitioner but in the present
case (Kesariya P.S. Case No. 61 of 2022), the victim has stated
in her statement under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 that after the
marriage the petitioner has produced the victim before the
family members and the family members whose named was
mentioned in the statement under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023
have committed rape upon her in presence of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28651 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
6. Considering the nature of allegation against the
petitioner which is supported by the victim in her re-statement,
I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection
with Kesariya P.S. Case No. 61 of 2022 pending in the court of
learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Motihari, East Champaran.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…