Patna High Court
Gopal Sahni @ Gopal Sahni DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Gopal Sahni and Shubhkala Devi, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case alleging kidnapping of a minor girl with intent to marry, under Sections 87 and 3(5) of the BNSS. They claimed innocence, stating they are the parents of the main accused, Sachin Kumar, and that the victim herself had eloped and married the accused, withdrawing support for the prosecution. The victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS corroborated this claim, and the petitioners were shown to have a clean criminal record. The State and the informant opposed bail, but the court found the petitioners had made a prima facie case for release. Consequently, the court directed that the petitioners be released on pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the parents of an alleged kidnapper can be granted pre‑arrest bail under Sections 87 and 3(5) of the BNSS
- Whether the victim’s voluntary marriage and lack of cooperation with the prosecution justify bail
- Whether Section 482(2) of the BNSS permits the grant of pre‑arrest bail in such circumstances
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- kidnapping
- child marriage
- Section 87
- Section 3(5)
- Section 482(2)
- Bihar
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56377 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2025 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Gopal Sahni @ Gopal Sahni Das, Aged about 43 years (Male) Son of Takko
Sahni
2. Shubhkala Devi, aged about 40 years (F), Wife of Gopal Sahni @ Gopal
Sahni Das.
Both are residents of Village -Gudarghat, Wad No 18, P.S. -Khanpur, District
-Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jainarayan Mahto son of Shriu jageshwar Mahto Resident Of Vill
-Gudarghat, Wad No 18, Ps -Khanpur, Dist -Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Raja Ram Mishra,
learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Khanpur P.S. Case No. 126 of 2025, registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 87 and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
petitioners along with co-accused Sachin Kumar, had allegedly
kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant with an intention
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56377 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
to marry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted
that petitioners are father and mother of the main accused
Sachin Kumar, against whom it has been alleged that with an
intention to marry, he had kidnapped the minor daughter of the
informant. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section
183 BNSS on 16.09.2025, has given specific information that
she was in love relationship with the co-accused Sachin Kumar
and she, on her own, had eloped with him and had performed
marriage with the said Sachin Kumar on 01.06.2025 and has not
supported the prosecution case. The son of the petitioners has
just emerged as an adult being aged about 18 years and the
victim is aged about 16 years and at this stage, natural attraction
for the opposite sex cannot be denied coupled with the several
psychological and physiological change person undergo.
Petitioners have clean antecedent. On these grounds, petitioners
seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant and learned APP for the State vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56377 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
6. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, the fact that the petitioners are father
and mother of the main accused Sachin Kumar, against whom it
has been alleged that with an intention to marry, he had
kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant. The victim, in
her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS on 16.09.2025,
has given specific information that she was in love relationship
with the co-accused Sachin Kumar and she, on her own, had
eloped with him and had performed marriage with the said
Sachin Kumar on 01.06.2025 and has not supported the
prosecution case. The son of the petitioners has just emerged as
an adult being aged about 18 years and the victim is aged about
16 years and at this stage, natural attraction for the opposite sex
cannot be denied coupled with the several psychological and
physiological change person undergo. Petitioners have clean
antecedent. I am of the opinion that petitioners have, prima
facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioners, above named, are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56377 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court
where the case is pending, in connection with Khanpur P.S.
Case No. 126 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioners as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…