Patna High Court
Manjit Yadav @ Manjit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted because the victim’s statement under Section 183 demonstrated the absence of the enticing element and the victim was not a tender‑age child, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case.
Summary
Manjit Yadav was arrested in connection with a case registered under Section 96 of the B.N.S., later amended to include Section 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging that he enticed and kidnapped a 16‑year‑old girl. The petitioner sought regular bail, contending that the allegations were false and that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. showed she left home of her own volition, was in love with the petitioner, had married, and was not a tender‑age child. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing the offences were serious and the victim was a minor. The Court examined the victim’s statement and the lack of an enticing element under Section 137 of the B.N.S., as well as the victim’s refusal to undergo a medical examination. Concluding that the prosecution had not established the essential ingredients of the offences, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties. The application for bail was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail for offences under Section 96 and Section 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. negates the element of enticing or kidnapping required under Section 137 of the B.N.S.
- Whether the alleged victim qualifies as a minor under the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regular bail
- kidnapping
- enticing
- POCSO Act
- minor
- Section 183 statement
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3711 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2025 Thana- LODIPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Manjit Yadav @ Manjit Kumar Son of Srikant Yadav @ Shreekant Yadav R/o
village - Ward No.- 03, Navtoliya, P.S.- Pasraha, District - Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sheela Devi Wife of Ramjanam Chaudhary R/o village - Agarpur, Pasi Tola,
P.S.- Lodipur, Dist. - Bhagalpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
For the Informant/s : Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate
Mr. Ritik Shah, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Suman, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Lodipur P.S. Case No.
213 of 2025 dated 14.09.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 96 of B.N.S. Subsequently added
under Section 64(1) of B.N.S. and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the
informant, aged about 16 years and a student of class-IX th, went
out of the house saying that she would be coming from
Aanganbadi and when the victim did not come home after a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3711 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
much long time, they started looking for and later on the
informant learnt that she used to talk with a boy, namely, Manjit
Yadav (petitioner). The informant stated that this petitioner
enticed the victim and has kidnapped her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is palpably false. In view of her
statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., in which she
has stated that she was in love with this petitioner and on her
own sweet will, she has left the house and had performed
marriage in the district of Khagaria. It has been submitted that
there is no element of enticing or taking her away as provided
under Section 137 B.N.S., so as to constitute offence under
Section 96 B.N.S. The victim has also refused her medical
examination by medical expert. It has been further submitted
that she is not of such tender age rather she is on the verge of
majority and out of such tender age, so as to not understand the
consequences. It has been further submitted that petitioner is in
custody since 19.09.2025 having no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of
the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3711 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
and particularly the statement recorded under Section 183
BNSS, the petitioner above-named is directed to be enlarged on
bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Bhagalpur in
connection with Lodipur P.S. Case No. 213 of 2025.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…