Patna High Court
Pintu Sah @ Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail and ordered the petitioner to surrender.
Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Kumar, was named in an FIR alleging his participation in the kidnapping of a 14‑year‑old girl and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act and the POCSO Act. The informant claimed the girl was abducted twice, photographed and threatened with viral distribution, and feared she might be sold. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged after an unreasonable delay, and that he has no criminal record. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was opposed by the State. After hearing both sides, the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to surrender within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the serious allegations of kidnapping and child sexual offences.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the claim of false implication affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 137(2), 140, 3(5), 351(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 11, 12
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- child sexual offences
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- IT Act
- POCSO Act
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3407 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2024 Thana- KHAIRA District- Saran
======================================================
Pintu Sah @ Pintu Kumar S/o- Late Kanhaiya Sah R/v- Khodaibagh P.S.-
Khaira Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanaullah @ Md. Sanaullah S/o- Late Md. Mojib Miyan R/v- Khodaibagh
P.S.- Khaira District- Saran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Mili Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State. No one appears for the opposite party
no.2.
2. The petitioner in this application prays for bail
apprehending his arrest in connection with Khaira P.S. Case
no.279 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under
section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to which
sections 351(2), 140 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
section 66 of the I.T. Act and sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO
Act were added subsequently.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that his 14 year old daughter had been kidnapped on an earlier
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3407 of 2026(4) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
occasion by the four named accused persons including the
petitioner herein. She was subsequently released after four days
on police pressure. It is further stated that she disclosed that the
accused persons had recorded her objectionable photos and
videos and threatened that they would make the same viral. She
has once again been kidnapped on 14.11.2024 by the accused
persons which was seen by the informant. The informant finally
states that he apprehends that she may be sold by them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No such
occurrence as alleged in the FIR has taken place and the
petitioner has no concern with the daughter of the informant. It
is for this reason that not only the petitioner but his sister,
brother and mother had already been made accused. There is no
explanation whatsoever for the delay of ten days in lodging of
the FIR. In fact, the daughter of the informant was in the habit
of leaving her house but used to return back after some days.
The allegations levelled against the petitioner are all false and
concocted. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3407 of 2026(4) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in
the FIR according to which the petitioner and others were seen
kidnapping the daughter of the informant together with the
victim not having been recovered yet, the Court is not inclined
to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application
is rejected.
7. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the learned
Court below within a period of four weeks.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
Checking your session…