Patna High Court
Kajal KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to monetary and surety conditions and a relative surety requirement.
Summary
Kajal Kumari applied for bail fearing arrest in a kidnapping case (PS case No. 621 of 2021) involving alleged abduction of a minor under IPC sections 363, 366(A) and 34. The FIR originally named three accused, including Rahul Kumar and his parents, but after the victim returned, her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC implicated the petitioner as having persuaded the girl to travel with Rahul. The State opposed bail, arguing the petitioner’s complicity, while the petitioner asserted a clean antecedent and willingness to cooperate. The court examined the victim’s statement, noted that the primary allegation centered on Rahul Kumar, and found no substantive basis to detain the petitioner. Consequently, the court ordered bail on a cash bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and additional conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, Kajal Kumari, should be granted bail in connection with the kidnapping charges under IPC sections 363, 366(A) and 34 despite the victim’s statement implicating her.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366(A)
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- abduction
- IPC
- Section 363
- Section 366A
- Section 34
- Section 164 CrPC
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- POCSO
- minor
- trafficking
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50256 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-621 Year-2021 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Kajal Kumari, D/o Ravindra Rai @ Rabindra Rai, R/o vill- Sakkadi, Paschim
tola, P.S.- Koilwar, Distt.- Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Yashoda Devi, W/o Late Rambabu Nuniya, R/o vill- Sakkadi, P.S.- Koilwar,
Distt.- Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 621 of 2021 registered
for the offences under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Allegedly on the fateful day, the minor daughter of
the informant had gone to attend the coaching class, and when
she did not return, the informant and her family members tried
to know about her whereabouts and later on they came to know
that her daughter has been enticed away by co-accused Rahul
Kumar. When the informant went to the house of Rahul Kumar,
his parents abused and threatened.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50256 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking this
Court through the F.I.R. contended that initially the F.I.R. was
instituted against three named accused persons, including Rahul
Kumar and his parents, but later on all of a sudden after a year,
the victim girl returned and her statement was recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that on the alleged
date of occurrence on 14.12.2021, it is the petitioner who had
persuaded her to sit in the Scorpio vehicle along with Rahul
Kumar and later on she was taken to Maharashtra, where some
of the persons committed wrongful acts with her. The informant
of this case, who is non-else but the mother of the victim
categorically stated and filed an application before the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara that co-accused
Rahul might have allured and taken away her daughter and there
is no role ascribed to his family members, moreover, the co-
accused, Rahul Kumar also died on 27.09.2022. The petitioner
is an unmarried woman, having fair antecedent and she
undertakes that she will fully cooperate in the proceeding of the
court.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the
complicity of the petitioner is writ large from the statement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50256 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
the victim, as recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note
of the statement of the victim, which clearly suggests that the
entire allegation revolves around co-accused Rahul Kumar, who
had allegedly sold her to some unknown persons and the
petitioner is a woman and having fair antecedent, let the
petitioner, named above, in the event of her arrest or surrender
before the court below within four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned 6th District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Court, POCSO, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Koilwar P.S.
Case No. 621 of 2021, subject to the condition as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the bailors
shall be the own/close relative of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
U T
Checking your session…