Patna High Court
Saroj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Saroj Kumar sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR alleging that he, along with others, kidnapped a minor girl for the purpose of marriage. The prosecution charged him under Sections 87, 137, 126(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., and the victim’s statement recorded under Sections 181 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. implicated him. The petitioner claimed innocence and clean antecedents, arguing that the allegations were false and motivated. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusation, the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s recorded statement. The court, after considering the gravity of the charge and the victim’s testimony, rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the specific accusations of kidnapping a minor for marriage and the victim's statement.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- child marriage
- victim statement
- criminal procedure
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5705 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2025 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Saroj Kumar S/O Jai Prakash Prasad Singh Resident of Vill.- Bhadas,
Dakshini, Ward no. 11, P.S.- Gangour, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Babita Devi W/O Muni Sahani Resident of Vill.- Bhadas, Dakshini, Ward
no. 10, P.S.- Gangour, District- Khagaria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pramod Kumar
Pandey, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 137,
126(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the
F.I.R. named accused persons, including this petitioner,
kidnapped minor daughter of informant for the purpose of
marriage.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5705 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case with ulterior motive. Petitioner claims clean
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
with specific accusation that he, along with other accused
persons, kidnapped minor daughter of informant on the point of
riffle and forcibly solemnized marriage. It is further submitted
that during investigation, the victim was recovered and in her
statement recorded under Sections 181 and 183 of the B.N.S.S.,
she has supported the prosecution case and has named this
petitioner as one of the person who kidnapped her.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
and statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the
B.N.S.S., the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…