Patna High Court
Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Suraj Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case registered under Sections 96 and 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act for allegedly abducting a 17‑year‑old girl. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and argued that the victim’s statement, recorded under Section 183 BNSS, indicated she left voluntarily, later married the petitioner, and was of the age of discretion. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The court examined the victim’s statement, the applicability of the age‑of‑discretion rule, and the provisions of Section 482(2) BNSS. It concluded that the petitioner's arrest would not serve a useful purpose and granted anticipatory bail subject to monetary and surety conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 96 and 137 BNSS and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement, indicating voluntary departure and marriage, negates the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the victim, being 17 years 11 months old, falls within the age of discretion for the offences under the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 137, 182, 183, 482(2), 483, 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- BNSS
- POCSO Act
- age of discretion
- false implication
- kidnapping
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36989 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2026 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Suraj Kumar S/o Munna Paswan R/o Village - Dighi, P.S - Barun, District -
Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXXX W/o YYYY R/o Village - Dighi, P.S - Barun, District - Aurangabad
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mukul Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 96 and 137
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 8 and 12 of the
POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 14-2-2026 at about 12:30 pm, her daughter aged
about 17 years went out of the house for attending call of nature
but did not return, thereafter a search was made and the
informant came to know that Suraj and Nikhil had taken the
victim away on a motorcycle with the help of their parents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36989 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that the victim was recovered and
her statement was recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wherein
she has not supported the case of the prosecution rather has
stated that she left her house on 14-2-2026 without disclosing to
anyone and went to Raigarh and on 10-3-2026 she called Suraj
to Raigarh and they got married in a temple, further that she was
in love with Suraj for the last four years. It is also submitted that
date of birth of the victim is 3-3-2008 as such on the date of
occurrence she was 17 years 11 months and 11 days old. It is
thus submitted that victim had reached the age of discretion. It is
reiterated and submitted that since the victim has not supported
the case of the prosecution as such no useful purpose would be
served by sending the petitioner to jail.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36989 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
3/3
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Barun P.S. Case No. 76 of 2026, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.