Suman @ Suman Kumar @ Suman PaswanversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67093 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2014 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Suman @ Suman Kumar @ Suman Paswan Son of Late Sulochan Paswan
                 R/o Village - Mohanpur Doghra, P.O.- Bahpura, P.S.- Bihta, District - Patna.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Shaheen Begum,A.P.P
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   17-01-2026                         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P for the State.

                                   2. The petitioner apprehend his arrest in a case

                   registered under sections 363, 366, 366(A) and 120(B) of

                   the IPC.

                                      3. As per the prosecution case, the informant’s

                   daughter had left the house on 21.04.2014 and a sanha was

                   registered on the following day for informing the said

                   missing of the informant’s daughter. Subsequently, the First

                   Information Report was lodged on 02.05.2014 with the

                   allegations that some unknown persons used to call the

                   victim on her phone and have lured the victim away.

                                      4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67093 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
                                            2/4




          outset submits that the First Information Report was lodged

          after inordinate delay of about eleven days in as much as,

          while the daughter of the informant went missing on

          21.04.2014, the F.I.R was lodged on 02.05.2014 and the

          petitioner was not even named in the First Information

          Report as an accused. Subsequently, after recovery of the

          victim girl, her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was

          recorded wherein she has stated her age to be eighteen

          years, narrating a story about she being opposesd to her

          father fixing her marriage with some person, as such, she

          went away with the petitioner with whom she had come in

          contact over telephone and travelled initially to Delhi and

          then to Gujarat where she stayed along with him. In the

          later part of the 164 statement of Cr.P.C, she has stated that

          the petitioner had proposed to marry her but it was she who

          refused the said marriage. The age of the victim in the F.I.R

          has also been disclosed as seventeen years. It has further

          been submitted that the petitioner is residing in Gujarat for

          his livelihood and till date no coercive steps have been

          taken against him and he was totally unaware of any F.I.R

          being pending against him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67093 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
                                            3/4




                         5. The learned A. P.P. for the State opposes the

          grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of the statement of

          the victim girl under section 164 of Cr.P.C and as also the

          delay caused in approaching this Court for anticipatory bail.

                         6. Taking into consideration the facts and

          circumstances and also considering the fact there is an

          inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, the petitioner not

          being named in the First Information Report and coupled

          with the fact that the victim was a major or on the verge of

          the majority who took an informed and a conscious choice

          of being with the petitioner and further considering the fact

          that no coercive process has been taken against the

          petitioner who is staying in Gujarat, let the petitioner above

          named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the

          learned Court below within a period of four weeks, be

          released on anticipatory bail in connection with Punpun

          case no. 62 of 2014 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-

          (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where

          the case is pending subject to the condition laid down under

          Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67093 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
                                                         4/4




                       482(2) of the B.N.S.S, 2023.

                                    7. However, on account of the delay already

                       having caused in the case, it is directed that one of the

                       bailors would be a family member/close relative and the

                       other would be a local resident of the jurisdiction of the

                       court.

                                    8. The petitioner is directed to cooperate fully in

                       the investigation and subsequently in the trial and in case

                       any delay is caused on account of his non-cooperation, the

                       learned court concerned would be at liberty to cancel the

                       bail bond of the petitioner.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-

U      T