Patna High Court
Soni Mahato @ Sunni KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for anticipatory bail and is entitled to its grant.
Summary
The petitioner, Soni Mahato, was implicated in a case (Amhara P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025) under Sections 140(3) and 137(2) of the BNS for allegedly abducting the minor daughter of an informant with intent to marry her. The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS, however, indicated that she voluntarily went with the petitioner and that their marriage was consensual, without any force or inducement. The petitioner, maintaining a clean antecedent, applied for pre‑arrest (anticipatory) bail, which the State opposed. The Court, relying on the victim’s voluntary statement and the Supreme Court’s observation in State of U.P. vs. Anirudh & Anr. that consensual relationships are a relevant factor in bail considerations, found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the Court directed the District Court to grant anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482 of the BNS and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the alleged offence involves abduction of a minor but the victim claims a consensual relationship.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS can be given decisive weight in bail determination.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the consensual nature of the relationship negate the necessity of pre‑arrest detention.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 137(2), 140(3), 183, 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- consensual relationship
- abduction of minor
- Section 183
- Section 482
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4027 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- Amhara District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Soni Mahato @ Sunni Kumar Son of Jito Mahato @ Jitan Mahato @ Jitendra
Mahato Resident of Village- Kachhiyaha, P.S.- Amhara, District- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bimla Devi Wife of Late Laxmi Mahto Resident of Village- Amhara, P.S-
Amhara, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Prasad
Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Amhara P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025 registered under Sections
140(3) and 137(2) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, on
04.09.2025 the informant’s minor daughter went missing from
the market and it is alleged that she was enticed away by the
petitioner (Soni Mahato), and upon visiting his house, the
informant was allegedly abused and assaulted by the named
accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4027 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. The victim in her
statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has given
information that she willingly married with the petitioner and
they are living together. Both parties were in relationship for
quite sometime and enjoyed each other’s company for months
together and indulged in sexual act and as such, it cannot be said
to be induced or involuntarily. The relationship was consensual.
The petitioner has clean antecedent. On these grounds, the
petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on
record, it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is of
abducting the minor daughter of the informant with an intent to
marry her. However, it transpires from the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS that she has
categorically stated that she had voluntarily gone with the
petitioner and solemnized marriage with him on her own,
without any force, coercion or inducement. The parties were in a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4027 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
consensual love relationship prior to the alleged occurrence. It is
well settled that the statement of the alleged victim is required
to be given due weight and consideration.
7. In case of State of U.P. vs. Anirudh & Anr.
reported in 2026 LiveLaw(SC)29, the Apex Court has observed
that where the relationship between the parties appears to be
consensual and founded on mutual affection, the same is a
relevant factor to be borne in mind while considering matters
relating to bail and prosecution. In the present case, the victim,
in her statement, has indicated that she had accompanied the
petitioner on her own. In such circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner has, prima facie, made out a case to
be released on pre-arrest bail
8. The learned District Court is directed to release the
petitioner on anticipatory 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/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending
in connection with Amhara P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025, subject to
the condition as laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS.
9. The learned District Court is directed to verify
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4027 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner, as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…