Patna High Court
Madhuranjan Kumar @ Madhuranjan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS specifically implicated the petitioner in the kidnapping and related offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Madhuranjan Kumar, was named in an FIR for allegedly kidnapping a 16‑year‑old girl with intent to commit illicit intercourse, under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged four days after the incident, that he was merely a cousin of the victim’s boyfriend, and that he had a clean antecedent, seeking anticipatory bail. The prosecution highlighted the victim’s recorded statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein she specifically identified the petitioner as having rendered her unconscious and abducted her. The court examined the credibility of the victim’s statement and the seriousness of the offences, particularly the kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor. Concluding that the petitioner’s alleged involvement was clearly alleged in the victim’s statement, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the allegations of kidnapping and sexual offences.
- Whether the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS suffices to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- sexual offences
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- POCSO
- child protection
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41924 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2026 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Madhuranjan Kumar @ Madhuranjan Yadav, S/o Harendra Rai, Resident of
Village-Maharani Bairiya, P.S- Kotwa, District- East Champaran (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X, W/o Y, Resident of Village-Maharani Bairiya, P.S.- Kotwa, District- East
Champaran (Bihar).
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Kotwa P.S. Case No.67
of 2026 registered under Sections 137(2), 96, 351(2), 352 read
with 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘B.N.S.’)
as well as Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act.
3. As per FIR, petitioner along with named co-accused
persons alleged to kidnap the minor daughter of informant aged
about 16 years for the purpose of illicit intercourse/marriage with
another person.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner that as per FIR, it appears that informant is eye witness
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41924 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/2
of the occurrence but, the FIR in issue was lodged with delay of
four days just as an afterthought to implicate this petitioner. It is
submitted that the victim daughter of informant was in relationship
with one Saroj Kumar and this petitioner has been implicated only
being cousin brother. The petitioner claimed clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail
referred the impugned order, where it is categorically mentioned
that the victim while recording her statement under Section 183 of
the BNSS specifically named this petitioner, who after making her
unconscious, kidnapped her forcefully along with co-accused
persons in a white vehicle, when she was on her way to light a
lamp in nearby temple.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as victim specifically alleged against this
petitioner to involve in her kidnapping while recording her
statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, accordingly, the prayer
of anticipatory bail of petitioner stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.