Patna High Court
Rupesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to strict conditions, because he has a clean antecedent and the victim’s statement does not substantiate the prosecution’s case.
Summary
The petitioner, Rupesh Kumar, was arrested in connection with a kidnapping and alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. He applied for bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the FIR was fabricated, while the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS did not support the prosecution. The State opposed the bail, but the second opposite party failed to appear despite service of notice. The court noted the petitioner’s clean record, the lack of corroboration from the victim, and the absence of opposition from the second opposite party. Consequently, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order was made subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged kidnapping and offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which does not support the prosecution, affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNSS) Act — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 3(5), 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- kidnapping
- minor
- clean antecedent
- Section 183 BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6546 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2025 Thana- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR District-
Saharsa
======================================================
Rupesh Kumar S/O Sone Lal Yadav Resident of Village- Mobarakpur, P.S-
Salkhua, District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX D/O Ramesh Kumar S/O Late Kallar Mehta, R/O Village- Mahkhar
Ward No. 07, P.S- Bakhtiyarpur, Distt.- Saharsa.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice, no one appeared on
behalf of O.P. No. 2.
3. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
16.10.2025 in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 22 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 and
3(5) and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Ramesh
Kumar gave typed written application to the S.H.O,
Bakhtiyarpur police station on 16.1.2025 alleging there in that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6546 of 2026(4) dt.23-03-2026
2/4
her daughter (Victim) aged about 16 Years on 16.1.2025 at
about 7:00 A.M went for some work. After some time, when she
did not return then he and his other family members went out to
search for his daughter and on query he came to know from the
people gathered there that her minor daughter has forcibly been
taken away in white colour Scorpio by Rupesh Kumar
(Petitioner) Son of Sone Lal Yadav 2. Sonelal Yadav Son of
Unknown resident of village- Mobarakpur, P.S.- Salkhua,
District- Saharsa, alongwith two three of their associates. Since
few months ago Rupesh Kumar used to call me from his
different mobile numbers- 9311412515, 7209555741,
7991158712, 6201817272, 8948225090, 9279795605,
8540056051,8434521007, 9102879071, 9661507537,
7061210671, 9791893018, 9279795605, 7061933080,
98013599886, 8881088438, 9279761895 on his mobile no.
9523658226 and 9534950259 and threatened if you will not
marry your daughter Sivangi with him then the accused persons
will his entire family members. It is further alleged that due to
fear and prestige he has blocked all these mobile numbers. It is
further alleged that after which her daughter was kidnapped by
these people under a conspiracy and wrong intention. Thereafter
he is afraid that these people can do some untoward incident
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6546 of 2026(4) dt.23-03-2026
3/4
with her daughter. It is further alleged that her daughter has a
mobile number 9534950259 which is continuously coming
switched off. Hence, he respectfully tried to recover his
daughter immediately.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that the statement of the
victim was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS in which she
has not supported the case of the prosecution.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the
other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and also
that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of
BNSS has not supported the case of the prosecution, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6546 of 2026(4) dt.23-03-2026
4/4
Judge, POCSO, Saharsa in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S.
Case No. 22 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…