Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar Sah, was arrested in connection with a kidnapping allegation under Section 96 of the BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, stemming from a complaint that he forcefully abducted the informant's daughter. The petitioner contended that the alleged incident was a consensual elopement leading to marriage, that the victim was 17 years 11 months old at the time, and that the FIR was lodged after an undue delay. The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS affirmed that she left home voluntarily, disclosed her age as 18, and expressed a desire to live with the petitioner. The court considered the delay in filing the FIR, the victim’s voluntary statement, the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and the applicability of the POCSO provisions. Accordingly, the court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, including that one bailor be a close family member.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a kidnapping case alleged under Section 96 of the BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the provisions of the POCSO Act are applicable given the victim's age at the time of the alleged incident.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the victim’s voluntary statement affect the merits of the kidnapping charge.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO Act
- minor
- delay in FIR
- voluntary marriage
- Section 96 BNS
- Section 4 POCSO
- Section 183 BNSS
- Section 482(2) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48643 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Sah, S/o Brahamanand Sah, R/o Village- Kanchanpur Kachra,
Ward no. 12, P.S.- Saurbazar, District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Archana Kumari D/O Shasikant Rai R/O Vill.- Kalimungra, Ward no. 4,
P.S.- Kishunpur, Dist.- Supaul
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Kishanpur P.S. Case No.01 of 2025 (corresponding to
POCSO Case No.02/2025) registered for the offences
punishable under Section 96 of the BNS and Section 4 of the
POCSO Act.
3. Accusation against the petitioner is of forcefully
kidnapping the daughter of the informant with the help of other
accused persons, who were variously armed and also obtained
signature from the informant on a blank paper.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48643 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
the alleged occurrence took place on 24.12.2024, but the present
FIR came to be instituted on 01.01.2025. In fact, the petitioner
and the victim girl had been in a relationship, which finally
resulted into solemnization of marriage, but since the informant
who happens to be father of the victim was not happy with the
relationship, the present FIR came to be instituted after making
a concocted story of forceful kidnapping. The entire prosecution
case falls to the ground on bare perusal of the statement of the
victim, who has categorically stated that she was in good
relationship with the petitioner and voluntarily left her house
and solemnized marriage. She also stated that she wants to live
in her matrimonial home with the petitioner and does not want
to go to her parental home. The age of the victim has been
assessed to be 17 years 11 months and 19 days on the date of
alleged occurrence and, as such, the benefit must be given in
favour of the accused. Even if the allegation is taken to be true,
no penal provision of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act would apply, is the contention of the learned
Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner bears fair antecedent.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that on
the alleged date of occurrence, the victim was minor and there is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48643 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
specific accusation of kidnapping against the petitioner.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note
of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the
BNSS, wherein she has categorically stated that she voluntarily
left her home and solemnized marriage, besides she disclosed
her age to be 18 years as also the delay in lodging of the FIR
and the fair antecedent of the petitioner, let the above named
petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below 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 & Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, at Supaul, District-Supaul in
connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No.01 of 2025
(corresponding to POCSO Case No.02/2025), subject to the
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with
further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close
family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…