Patna High Court
Amit Kumar @ Amit TantiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail as a prima facie case exists and the victim’s voluntary marriage claim undermines the prosecution’s case.
Summary
Amit Kumar, a 23‑year‑old, was charged under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable... Act for allegedly kidnapping the minor daughter of an informant. The victim, after being rescued, gave a statement under Section 183 BNSS claiming she voluntarily married the petitioner and now lives with him as husband and wife. The petitioner, who has a clean antecedent, applied for pre‑arrest bail, while the State opposed, emphasizing the victim’s minority at the time of the alleged offence. The Court examined the FIR, the victim’s statement, and the petitioner’s age and relationship, and held that a prima facie case for bail existed. Accordingly, the Court granted pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, directing the District Court to verify any other criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the alleged kidnapping of a minor.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, indicating a voluntary marriage, negates the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and age justify bail under Section 482(2) BNSS.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Act — s. 137(2), 183, 3(5), 482(2), 96
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- voluntary marriage
- Section 183 BNSS
- Section 482(2) BNSS
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38716 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2025 Thana- DANDARI District- Begusarai
======================================================
Amit Kumar @ Amit Tanti, Male, aged about 23 years, S/O Grish Tanti @
Girish Tanti R/O Village - Katahri, Katahari, Ward No.- 1, Mahipa Tol, P.S-
Dandari, District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Dandari P.S. Case No. 164 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the
BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
petitioner along with other co-accused persons allegedly
kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant, who is mother
of the victim.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that after recovery of the victim girl, her
statement was recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38716 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
has admitted that on her own free will, she tied the knot with
the petitioner and now they are living together as husband and
wife. The statement of the victim is mentioned in paragraph
no.67 of the case diary. Petitioner has clean antecedent. On these
grounds, petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail and submitted that at the time
of alleged occurrence, the girl was minor and complicity of the
petitioner in the alleged offence cannot be denied.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the FIR, as well as, the
impugned order, I find that it was submitted before the learned
District Court that the victim, in her statement recorded under
Section 183 of the BNSS, has not supported the prosecution
case, as would appear from paragraph no. 67 of the case diary. It
is also evident from the records that the victim was a minor at
the time of the alleged occurrence, however, she has stated that
she had married the petitioner with her free consent.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is about 23 years of age
and he was in love relationship with the daughter of the
informant, and that they are presently living together as husband
and wife, I am of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38716 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai /
Concerned Court in connection with Dandari P.S. Case No. 164
of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the
petitioner is involved in some other cases, as what has been
stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will
automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.