Patna High Court
Niranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a bond and specified conditions.
Summary
Niranjan Kumar was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he and his family enticed his niece to obtain her land and possibly subject her to exploitation. The FIR listed offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, the POCSO Act and the IT Act. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and argued that the victim’s statement, recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, did not support the prosecution. The prosecution opposed bail. The court, noting the lack of victim support and the petitioner’s clean record, granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the BNSS, POCSO Act and IT Act
- Whether the victim’s non‑supportive statement under Section 183 BNSS and the petitioner’s clean antecedent justify bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita — s. 183
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 140(3), 142, 61(2), 69
- Information Technology Act — s. 66C, 66D
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- IT Act
- clean antecedent
- victim statement
- property dispute
- sexual exploitation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3174 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2025 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Niranjan Kumar S/o Raju Paswan Resident of - Sahdullapur, Near - DAV
Public School Malighat, P.S - Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffapur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kajal Kumari D/o Dilip Rajak Resident of - Aamgola Khajurbanni, P.S -
Kaji Mohammadpur, District - Muzaffarpur Presently R/o - Chakwara, Near
- Masjid, P.S - Mithanpura, District - Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Masoom Alam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Dineshwar Pandey, Advocate
: Mr. Shivam Anand, Advocate
: Ms. Nandani Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 Heard Mr. Masoom Alam, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
13.09.2025 in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 170 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 11.07.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 140(3), 142, 69, 61(2)of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 and Section 4,8, 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 66C, 66D
of I.T Act.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged
that the petitioner and his family members enticed and took away
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3174 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
her niece with intention of grabbing her land and property, and in
case of refusal, her niece might be subjected to physical
exploitation or immoral activities.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated
in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as
alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has
not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. The statement
of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she
did not support the case of the prosecution apart from that it
appears from the FIR that date of the occurrence was on
05.07.2025 but the FIR was lodge on 11.07.2025 i.e. after delay of
about six days, after thought, only to falsely implicate the
petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 13.09.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
petitioner has clean antecedent and the victim did not support the
case of the prosecution in her statement which was recorded under
Section 183 BNSS, let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3174 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Exclusive Special Court POCSO-III, Muzaffarpur in
connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 170 of 2025, subject to
the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…