Patna High Court
Raja KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as there is no evidence of coercion and the victim’s statement indicates consent, despite her being a minor.
Summary
The petitioner, Raja Kumar, was charged under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 for allegedly abducting and marrying a girl aged 17 years and 10 months. The victim’s statement, recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S, asserted that she had eloped voluntarily, was married to the petitioner, and faced no coercion or threat. The State opposed bail on the ground that the victim was a minor and the POCSO provisions applied. The court examined the victim’s voluntary statement and the absence of any evidence of force, concluding that the prosecution had not established kidnapping or a POCSO offence. Consequently, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged abduction and marriage of a girl below eighteen years constitutes an offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
- Whether the victim’s voluntary statement negates the charge of kidnapping under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- kidnapping
- minor
- consent
- marriage
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66767 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- BATH District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Raja Kumar S/O Golu Mandal R/O Vill.- Deshawar, P.S.- Karhariya, P.S.-
Bath, Dist.- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Indu Kumari W/O Pankaj Kumar R/O Vill. and P.O. and P.S.- Bath, Dist.-
Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pragya Kiran, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
6 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 96 and 3 (5) of B.N.S and
Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
3. As per the prosecution case, informant’s daughter was
abducted by the petitioner with an intention of marrying her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present case has arisen out of a love relationship between the
petitioner and the victim and no offence of kidnapping is made out
against the petitioner as the victim had gone along with the petitioner
at her own volition and at the time of occurrence she was also on the
verge of majority. This fact would be evident from her statement
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66767 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of B.N.S.S
wherein she has disclosed her age as seventeen years and ten months
and has accepted that while she had come to give her statement along
with mother, she was giving the same without any fear or coercion.
She has made a categorical statement that no wrong was committed
with her and she had eloped with the petitioner ,Raja Kumar, on
25.12.2024 and also solemnized marriage with him and stayed at his
relatives’ place from where she also went to other places. Finally, in
her statement, she has also stated that the petitioner and victim were
staying as husband and wife and she had gone to the police station
also by her own will. Further, the petitioner is in custody since
17.04.2025 and charge sheet has already been submitted. Petitioner
bears no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.2, however, oppose the bail petition on the ground
that the girl had not attended the age of eighteen years and as such
the provision of POCSO Act will be made out.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and also considering that by an earlier order informant was
directed to appear in person and it was accepted that the victim was
married to the petitioner and before giving the statement under
Section 183 of B.N.S.S, she did not have a talk with any one, as such,
there is no question of threat and coercion, coupled with the fact that
there was a love relationship between the petitioner and the victim,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66767 of 2025(6) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection
with Bath P.S. Case No. of 05 of 2025 corresponding to POCSO
Case No. 142 of 2025.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…