Patna High Court
Sanjeev KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner on condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, was charged with kidnapping the minor daughter of an informant under several sections of the B.N.S., 2023. He sought bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated, that there was an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, and that the victim's age should be determined under the Juvenile Justice Act, rendering the charges inappropriate. The prosecution contended that the kidnapping was a serious offence. The court examined the delay, the victim's statement recorded under Section 183, and the relevance of the Juvenile Justice Act's age determination provisions. Finding no compelling reason to deny bail, the court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. The bail was granted subject to compliance with the conditions set by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Araria.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite charges of kidnapping a minor
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR justifies denial of bail
- Whether the victim's age, as determined under the Juvenile Justice Act, affects the applicability of the charges
- Whether the victim's voluntary statement and alleged compromise influence the bail decision
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 183
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 137(2), 139, 3(5)
- Juvenile Justice Act — s. 94
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- Juvenile Justice Act
- delay in FIR
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39537 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2025 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria
======================================================
Sanjeev Kumar Son of Raj Kumar Yadav Resident of Village- Mahikhand
Ward No. 04, P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX Wife of YYY Resident of Village- Raghunathpur Dakshin Ward No.
03, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 193 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 139, 137(2)
and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner has kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. He also submits that the occurrence is of 19.04.2025,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39537 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
whereas the FIR has been lodged on 05.06.2025. There is a
delay in lodging the FIR, which is not explained. He also
submits that from perusal of the order of the learned trial court,
it will transpire that the victim, after being recovered, has given
her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein
she has stated that she has gone with the petitioner on her own
sweet will and that she has also solemnized marriage. He further
submits that the investigating officer has pasted the School
Leaving Certificate of the victim, which goes to show that the
date of birth of the victim is 19.02.2012. He further submits that
the School Leaving Certificate is not a document of age
assessment in view of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It
is well settled that the determination of the age of the victim has
to be made in view of the provisions of Section 94 of the
Juvenile Justice Act. He further submits that the informant has
also filed a petition before the learned trial court stating that
they have compromised the present case. Moreover, a statement
has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no
criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody
since 03.03.2026.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39537 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Araria in connection with Bhargama P.S.
Case No. 193 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.